Hi Med,
More inline please,
On 9/7/2011 1:22 PM, mohamed.boucad...@orange-ftgroup.com wrote:
*) Is the focus of the document (properties used) on the whole address
architecture/format, or just on the algorithms to build port sets? As
in some proposals, for example 4rd, the port indexing algorithm can be
an independent part and decoupled from the address format.
[Med] All port indexing schemes are independent of the address format
itself, but we included some properties to reflect some design choices
made my the authors of these solutions on the address format. FWIW, we
will submit soon a list of requirements to be followed by stateless
address/prefix format.
Ok, and just FYI, there are some "design objectives" discussed in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-despres-softwire-4rd-addmapping-00#page-5
which may be useful to you.
*) For "despres-4rd",
Differentiated Port Sets Supported, through different piece of rules,
delegated CPE prefixes of different length.
[Med] the concern is more on the border router side, can you please
check if the operations are still stateless at the border side?
Yes, actually the multiple rules ([IPv6 DomPref, IPv4 DomPref] pairs)
are used to accommodate fragmented IPv4 address spaces.
BTW, I'm envisaging having two properties here:
(1) Differentiated Port Sets (network level)
(2) Differentiated Port Sets (bound to the same shared address)
IPv4 traffic Isolation supported
[Med] Ok. This is supported by assigning two prefixes.
Not necessary, for encapsulation, the next header can be used to
distinguish the traffic. In addition, a special IID is defined, which
can be used in the translation context.
Cheers,
Jacni
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
