Couple thoughts. 1. The current draft doesn't specify the static mapping rule like what 4rd does. So I guess we can't compare this to 4rd.
2. I keep thinking what are the difference of this and PRR. I guess Qiong's PRR definition is the forwarding decision would be done in the FIB. I don't disagree with this. My argument is the AFTR will need to use the port-range to find out the next-hop (the b4's IPv6 address). The difference between this and the PRR is the information is stored in the NAT table rather than the routing table. But the general idea is the same. On 8/8/11 11:02 PM, "Peng Wu" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi Yiu and all, >>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. > Should be CE--LW AFTR--CE style, is that what you >mean here? >>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? > Not sure about it. The thing is that it's >lightweight state while 4rd is stateless. Addressing is different. > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
