Hi, Satoru, Thanks a lot for your suggestion and I understand it can work. But in my understanding, it still lies some differences with the so-called "totally stateless solution".
Suppose there is only one domain, when an IPv4 downstream packet arrives at stateless gateway, it would firstly forward to the virtual tunnel interface (take 4V6 Mapped Tunnel for example) with only one default route. Then after encapsulated with a uniform IPv6 prefix and IPv4 prefix, etc, it will lookup IPv6 routing table and forward to 4v6 CE. Here, actually there is no need to do routing lookup for IPv4 address expect one default route. However, if we introduce multiple domains with multiple IPv4 prefix pools ( the number of each domain is N1, N2, N3,... Nm) , then the entry number of IPv4 routing table will be N1+N2+N3+..+Nm. In current situation, Nm would not be a small number anymore. So maybe some more optimization work will still be needed to make it more "stateless" ? Best wishes On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Satoru Matsushima < [email protected]> wrote: > Hello Qiong, > > > Routing always supports us. You can choose a tunnel which have appropriate > mapping rule by your routing table. Even it is 'totally stateless solution', > you have to lookup routing table as far as it is routing network. Hope it > helps your network design. > > Best regards, > --satoru
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
