Hi,
On 9/29/2011 2:00 PM, Ole Troan wrote:
Jacni,
I would be tempted to suggest that we write a "an implementation MUST NOT make this
assumption" in the MAP draft.
and that we in IETF documents write this as if there is a prefix reserved for
address mapping.
in the general case there is no way to guarantee that a host doesn't pick the
same IID. and we'll have to specify how this would work with DAD and proxy ND.
I'd rather not. left up to the implementor is my suggestion...
Taking the EUI-64 into account, a careful design of the 4rd IID can make the
probability of conflicts quite low. Then as you mentioned, DAD would further
reduce it.
Anyway, that's not to say I'm in favor of this design, the reason I see, of
doing this is just to accommodate the double translation while not affect at
all the IPv6 addressing (a reserved prefix? no ...).
the DAD/ND redirect solution would fail in the routed home case. i.e. the case
where there is multiple levels of routers in the network.
ok, I get your case.
Cheers,
Jacni
that's why I think the recommendation should be to use one /64 of the delegated prefix to
the translation "pool".
cheers,
Ole
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
