hi, On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 8:02 AM, Tina TSOU <tina.tsou.zout...@huawei.com>wrote:
> Hi all, > Some more comments on draft-qin-softwire-dslite-multicast-04. > #1 > General comment: is there any consideration of interaction with unicast > solutions, e.g., potential collocation or reuse of functions? Do we need > some mapping or interaction table of the function elements or tunnels > (IP-in-IP or IP-in-non-IP) to show the relationship with DS-Lite unicast > solution? > Jacni>: As Yiu mentioned in another email, the co-location with unicast DS-Lite elements is more deployment specific, and I'm ok to remove the section 4.5. From the protocol perspective, I don't see there is necessary interaction with the unicast solution. > #2 > Section 6.2 > Translation and encapsulation both uses the same mPrefix64 and uPrefix64, > so mB4 could not determine whether to de-capsulate the packets only based on > mPrefix64 and uPrefix64. Propose to change as "it checks whether the group > address is in the range of mPrefix64, the source address is in the range of > uPrefix64 and whether the next header of IPv6 header is 4." > Jacni>:Currently, we only employ the encapsulation for date forwarding in the main text. Cheers, Jacni > > > > Best Regards, > Tina TSOU > http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
