Hi Remi, On 4/6/11 10:04 AM, "Rémi Després" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Partially agreed. >- If all IPv6 customers are given the same number of IPv4 ports, 4rd >doesn't imply anything on Pv6 routing., >- If there are several 4over6 concentrators, there are constraints on the >IPv6 routing to ensure satisfactory load sharing between them with stable >routes. >- Furthermore, if these concentrators are far from one another, they >imply that the IPv4 backbone ensures symmetric routing so that all return >traffic from a concentrator comes back to it. I think we are on the same page. What I meant is in the case of stateful 6to4, IPv6 address won't contain any IPv4 address in the prefix. That won't require coupling between the IPv4 and IPv6 prefixes. It may or may not be a problem for some operators. LB is a different issue. It doesn't relate to address coupling. That said, it isn't so straight forward for stateless approach because it depends on the placement of the BR and the v6 routing to the anycast address. For stateful 4to6, the outgoing and incoming v4 traffic are symmetric because all v4 traffic must traverse the concentrator. I don¹t see why the backbone has to do something special for it. /Yiu _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
