Le 18 août 2011 à 10:42, Washam Fan a écrit : > 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?
I will look at it, and see what I think. Thanks. RD > 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
