It seems to me, when delegating CE ipv6 prefix, a longest match might be used. But when forwarding a IPv4 packet, a longest match is useless, because domain 4rd prefixes don't overlap.
Thanks, washam 2011/8/17 Rémi Després <despres.r...@laposte.net>: > > Le 17 août 2011 à 03:10, Jacni Qin a écrit : > >> 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. > > It isn't bad, agreed, because it gives the same result as first match when > prefixes don't overlap. > It shouldn't however be made a _requirement_ if there is no well understood > use case because that additional complexity, small but real. > > Whether there may be realistic configurations where prefix overlap is useful > remains AFAIK an open question. > I have serious doubts, but no time now to argue in details. > IMHO, It's up to those who argue in favor of longest match to provide at > least one realistic example (if there is one). > Then we will agree (or discuss). > Is that fair? > > Cheers, > RD > > > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
