Hi Remi, Jacni,
We are considering the following situation.
Initially, one 4rd mapping rule can be set like {2408:db8::/32, 10.10.0.0/24,
48}. After that, if renumbering is required, the additional mapping rules are
just distributed such as
{2408:db8:100::/40, 10.10.1.0/24, 48}
{2408:db8:200::/40, 10.10.2.0/24, 48}
...
In this case, it is useful to have a longest match to find the suitable mapping
rule.
Thanks,
Tetsuya Murakami
On 2011/08/16, at 18:10, Jacni Qin wrote:
> hi Remi,
>
> On 8/16/2011 4:27 PM, Rémi Després wrote:
>> ...
>> 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.
> If there are multiple ways for CPE to decide the IPv6 prefix, we have to
> specify the order of priority. e.g., firstly check if there is any
> implication assigned along with the rules, no? then choose the "longest"
> match.
> BTW, I think the longest match is not bad.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Jacni
>
>> Would you have such use cases to share?
>>
>> Regards,
>> RD
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
