2011/8/19 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} >> >> 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. > > Unless I misunderstand, this makes it an unrealistic use case, right?
Yeah. but the use case exists in theory. Anyway i can live with current 'longest match' text. B.R. washam > Cheers, > RD > > > > > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
