Oops. Typo. I mean "won't be possible". Sorry for the confusion. From: Jacni Qin <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 10:59:04 +0800 To: "Yiu L. LEE" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Qiong <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [Softwires] Clarification of the stateles/stateful discussion
hi Yiu, On 8/9/2011 10:28 AM, Lee, Yiu wrote: Agree that the CE-CE communication will be possible for LW AFTR because the rules are not store in the CE but in the LW AFTR. But my main question is both technical are so similar, can we have a session in 4rd to extend this special scenario rather than writing a new draft for it? Sorry, I don't follow and please correct me if I made mistakes, In the LW AFTR approach, the CE gets its port range, and the LW AFTR maintain the binding info. per user. The CE-CE communications have to pass through LW AFTR. The LW AFTR forwards incoming traffics based on the binding table. In 4rd, the rule is identical within one domain (on both CEs, and BR), then the CE can calculate Src/Dst of IPv6 encapsulation and route the packets to the other CEs. Cheers, Jacni From: Jacni Qin <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 10:23:14 +0800 To: "Yiu L. LEE" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Qiong <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [Softwires] Clarification of the stateles/stateful discussion Re-, Since the "rules" are "maintained" in different ways, then the forwarding behaviors, for incoming traffics and CE-CE etc., are different, IMHO. Cheers, Jacni
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
