Dear Jacni, Please see in line... Best Regards, Tina TSOU http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html
From: Jacni Qin [mailto:jac...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 7:33 PM To: Tina TSOU Cc: softwires@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Softwires] Comments on draft-qin-softwire-dslite-multicast-04 hi, On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Tina TSOU <tina.tsou.zout...@huawei.com<mailto:tina.tsou.zout...@huawei.com>> wrote: ... #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. [TT] I am not talking about translation solution in the main text. Even if in the encapsulation case, mB4 needs to determine whether to make de-capsulation or not. Jacni>: In the case of encapsulation, the mB4 can determine that by checking whether the group address is within the mPrefix64 and the source address is within the uPrefix64, as what the 6.2 says. [TT1] When the packet comes, how does mB4 know it should make encapsulation or translation if mPrefix64 and uPrefix64 are the same? In this case, the next header of IPv6 header could be used for mB4 to determine. Cheers, Jacni
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
