On Jul 28, 2011 6:03 AM, "Satoru Matsushima" <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. >
My advice is that you do not want to tie your solution to LISP. Cb. > 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
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
