Le 16 août 2011 à 16:06, Washam Fan a écrit : > Hi, > > 2011/8/16 Rémi Després <[email protected]>: >> Hi Tetsuya-san, >> >> I agree, of course, on the need to support several mapping rules. > > Is there anywhere in the draft to mention how to deliver these rules?
You can look at draft-mrugalski-dhc-dhcpv6-4rd-00. Some update will be necessary, AFAIK, but this gives an idea of what can be done once parameters are agreed on. > As my understanding, the provisions described in section 4 only can > generate a mapping rule, how about deliver multiple 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. > > Have the same feeling, ipv4 prefixes/addresses/port-set don't overlap, > per my understanding. Thanks, RD _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
