Sorry. I have a typo. The following address has no meaning...
Sorry again.
Tetsuya Murakami
On 2011/08/16, at 21:16, Tetsuya Murakami wrote:
> 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
