Hi Remi
2011/8/18 Rémi Després <[email protected]>:
>
> Le 18 août 2011 à 09:18, Washam Fan a écrit :
>
>>>> It seems to me, when delegating CE ipv6 prefix, a longest match might
>>>> be used.
>>>
>>> OK, but, again, if a realistic use case is available where longest match is
>>> indeed REQUIRED, there is no problem to impose longest match.
>>> What is missing so far is this use case.
>>
>> can i cite Tetsuya's examples to elaborate that? assume we have three
>> below rules
>> 1.{2408:db8:100::/40, 10.10.1.0/24, 48}
>> 2.{2408:db8:200::/40, 10.10.2.0/24, 48}
>> 3.{2408:db8::/32, 10.10.0.0/24, 48}
>
> To be complete, the example should IMHO show which CPE's have which IPv6
> prefixes, and with which IPv4 prefixes derived.
> OK?
OK.
CE prefix derived IPv4
1.{2408:db8:100::/40, 10.10.1.0/24, 48}
2048:db8:101::/48 10.10.1.1
2.{2408:db8:200::/40, 10.10.2.0/24, 48}
2048:db8:201::/48 10.10.2.1
3.{2408:db8::/32, 10.10.0.0/24, 48}
2408:db8:301::/48 10.10.0.3+ports
2408:db8:302::/48 10.10.0.3+ports
note that rule 3 responds to many CE prefixes and derived ipv4
addresses (plus ports)
Is that clearer?
Thanks,
washam
> Regards,
> RD
>
>>
>> if a 48 CE prefix is delegated, rule 1 and 2 should be checked against
>> before rule 3. Although in this case, you can not assign 10.10.0.1 and
>> 10.10.0.2 ipv4 addresses to a CE.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> washam
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
