Thank you Tina, it is also pointed out by Dave yesterday. Interestingly, Qiong pointed out another issue, which is routing scalability. I agree with Qiong that routing scalability is significant issue. FWIW, I would recommend something, LISP for example, could help him.
Best regards, --satoru On 2011/07/28, at 6:46, Tina TSOU wrote: > Matsushima-san, > In this draft, we may need to refer or define the definition of > - Stateful operation > - Stateless operation > - Dynamic port allocation > - Static port allocation > > Hope in this way, the discussion could be easier. > > > Best Regards, > Tina TSOU > http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Satoru Matsushima > Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 5:56 AM > To: Qiong > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Softwires] [softwire]comments on stateless 4v6 domain > > Hi Qiong, > > On 2011/07/28, at 4:31, Qiong wrote: > >> 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". > > I don't mean that 'totally stateless solution' isn't a part of routing > system. > >> 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. > > You already did routing when you found 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" ? > > What do you mean 'the entry number of IPv4 routing table'? > Do you presume that your IGP routing has almost 300K routes as same number of > current internet full routes? > > Best regards, > --satoru > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
