Hi Tetsuya-san, I agree, of course, on the need to support several mapping rules. But IMHO one point needs clarification (see below).
Le 16 août 2011 à 02:03, Tetsuya Murakami a écrit : > Hi Washam, > > We can allow to use multiple mapping rules in a 4rd domain. ... > When delegating an IPv6 prefix from the network, the corresponding mapping > rule whose domain ipv6 prefix has the longest match with the delegated ipv6 > prefix, can be selected. As already discussed privately, I don't know realistic cases where two rules would have IPv6 or IPv4 overlapping prefixes. Consequently, it seems that "longest" match, while being permitted, doesn't need to be a requirement. Would you have such use cases to share? Regards, RD > > Also, when forwarding an IPv4 packet to another CE, the corresponding mapping > rule whose domain 4rd prefix has the longest match with the the destination > ipv4 address, can be selected. > > It is stated in section 5.1.1 and section 7 a little bit in the draft. > > Thanks, > Tetsuya Murakami > > On 2011/08/14, at 5:52, Washam Fan wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> It seems to me only one domain IPv6 prefix is allowed, per >> draft-murakami-softwire-4rd-00. But I see no issue if we allow >> multiple domain IPv6 prefixes. E.g., when a CE tries to encapsulate a >> outbound IPv4 package, the matched rule can tell which domain ipv6 >> prefix can be used for building outer IPv6 destination address. >> >> Thanks, >> washam >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
