Hi, Remi, Thanks for your interests on 'Lightweight 4over6'. Please see inline.
Clarifying what is meant by "stateless" in different contexts is highly > desirable. > > The objective of the 4rd address mapping is > - no "per customer" state in provider nodes (BR, AFTR...) > - direct customer-customer paths made possible > > The 'Lightweight 4over6' proposal has in my understanding a different > objective: flexible port sets assignable to each individual customer. > [Qiong]: Yes. And in addition, its objective is also to achieve 'lightweight addressing and routing' with no special requirements on IPv6 address format. > It can therefore coexist with one or both "per-sustomer-stateless" > solution(s) (with encapsulation and/or double-translation). > [Qiong]: Sorry, I'm not quite clear of 'per-customer-stateless' solution. Is it for the ones where different customers have different IPv6 prefixes and then embedded with IPv4 address? For example: user1_v6 = user1_prefix+user1_v4+suffix; user2_v6 = user2_prefix+user2_v4+suffix; ... where user1_prefix != user2_prefix Is it right? Thanks Best regards. Qiong Sun
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
