Hi Tom,

In Section 3.1, the 6rd Prefix Delegation consists of p-bit, o-bit, and
m-bit. Can we show us an example how to support a customer who has a v6
CPE at home? Will the 6rd-GW delegate a PD not from the 6rd Prefix to the
home gateway? 

Also, the draft uses o-bit to identify the GW, so the 6rd-BR must have a
table to map the GW-ID to the IPv4 address assigned to the GW. This will
make the BR stateful and break the stateless nature of RFC5969.

Regards,
Yiu


On 12/8/10 7:38 AM, "Tom Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote:

>We have updated this document to allow for any type of tunnel, not just
>6-in-4. Delegated addresses now mimic the 6rd form, but we supply a
>reasonably credible example of how to derive /56 or even /48 from that
>form.
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: New Version Notification for draft-tsou-softwire-gwinit-6rd-02
>Date: Wed,  8 Dec 2010 00:14:47 -0800 (PST)
>From: IETF I-D Submission Tool <[email protected]>
>To: [email protected]
>CC: [email protected],[email protected],[email protected]
>
>
>A new version of I-D, draft-tsou-softwire-gwinit-6rd-02.txt has been
>successfully submitted by Cathy Zhou and posted to the IETF repository.
>
>Filename:     draft-tsou-softwire-gwinit-6rd
>Revision:     02
>Title:         "Gateway-Initiated" 6rd
>Creation_date:     2010-12-08
>WG ID:         Independent Submission
>Number_of_pages: 11
>
>Abstract:
>This document proposes a modification to the 6rd deployment model for
>IPv6.  The basic 6rd model allows IPv6 hosts to gain access to IPv6
>networks across an IPv4 access network using 6-in-4 tunnels. 6rd
>requires support by a device (the 6rd CE) on the customer site, which
>must also be assigned an IPv4 address.  The alternative model
>described in this document uses tunnels from operator-owned "6rd
>Gateways" collocated with the operator's IPv4 network edge.  The
>tunnels may be provisioned or automatic.  The advantages of this
>approach are that it requires no modification to customer equipment
>and avoids assignment of IPv4 addresses to customer equipment.  It
>also allows the 6rd prefix portion of the prefixes delegated to
>customer devices to be longer than can generally be achieved by basic
>6rd.  The gateway initiated 6rd model reuses the protocol defined in
>RFC 5969.
> 
>
>
>
>The IETF Secretariat.
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Softwires mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

Reply via email to