+1 The first category is stateless encapsulation, no table lookup, something like that; the second category is port allocation manner. Now the motivation draft kind of mix them together. I guess Classification is needed. Maybe describe both in separated parts? Depending on what you guys really want.
------------------ Peng Wu PhD candidate Department of Computer Science & Technology Tsinghua University, Beijing, China ------------------------------------------------------------- From：Tina TSOU Date：2011-07-28 19:04:47 To：Satoru Matsushima; Qiong CC：[email protected] Subject：Re: [Softwires] [softwire]comments on stateless 4v6 domain >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
