Hi, Qiong, Le 9 août 2011 à 08:43, Qiong a écrit :
> 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? It simply means that the number parameters of the address mapping algorithm is not related to the number of customer sites. The number of these parameters generally depends on the number of disjoint IPv4 prefixes that the ISP has to support (typically just a few), while tens of thousands or millions of customers can be supported. Regards, RD > 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
