Hi Tetsuya-san  and Jacni,

Please see inline.

Le 28 sept. 2011 à 15:14, Jacni Qin a écrit :

> hi Tetsuya,
> 
> Inline please,
> 
> On 9/28/2011 1:36 PM, Tetsuya Murakami wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Remi,
>> 
>> I have one question about your new address mapping draft.
>> 
>> In the draft, you mentioned the special IID can be used for distinguishing 
>> 4rd packets from other IPv6 packet whose destination start with CE IPv6 
>> prefixes.
>> 
>> But I think it is difficult to distribute the IPv6 prefix matching to the 
>> assigned Domain IPv6 prefix. Here is one example.
>> 
>> CE IPv6 Prefix:
>> +----------------------------+------------------+
>> | Domain IPv6 Prefix (36bit) | CE index (20bit) |
>> +----------------------------+------------------+
>> 
>> Domain IPv4 Prefix:
>> +--------------+
>> |   16 bits    |
>> +--------------+
>> 
>> In this case, the first 16bits of CE index can be embedded in the last 
>> 16bits of IPv4 address followed by Domain IPv4 prefix. And then the 
>> remaining 4bits of CE index can be embedded as PSID followed by 4bit port 
>> head.
>> 
>> At the BR, BR can generate the destination IPv6 address from the IPv4 
>> destination and the destination port number as shown below.
>> 
>> <---------------------------------- 64bit 
>> --------------------------------------->
>> +----------------------------+--------------------------------+------------------+
>> | Domain IPv6 Prefix (36bit) | suffix of IPv4 address (16bit) | MAX PSID 
>> (12bit) |
>> +----------------------------+--------------------------------+------------------+
>> <---------------- CE IPv6 Prefix (56bit)--------------------------->
>> 
>> PSID can be derived from the port number after removing the first 4bit even 
>> though the length of the actual PSID is only 4bit.
> The last 8 bits can be just ignored, but the first 56 bits are still unique 
> and enough for routing.
> 
>> In this case, CPE should terminate the packet whose IPv6 destination is 
>> matched to CE IPv6 Prefix and then process the decapsulation for 4rd. So, I 
>> think this means that any IPv6 prefix matching to CE IPv6 Prefix can be 
>> terminated at 4rd functionality in CE.
> If only talking about encapsulation approach, the CE can check the next 
> header to see whether the packet is for 4rd (of course, the tunneling by 
> hosts in LAN may not be allowed in this case).

Same understanding.
Thanks Jacni.


> While, generally to be compatible with double translation, the 4rd IID can be 
> employed.

Actually, having a recognizable format for 4rd addresses makes it possible for 
hosts behind a 4rd CE to use any other IPv4-in-IPv6 encapsulation that 4rd 
without their packets being (inappropriately) processed as 4rd packets by the 
CE.

With a 4rd-recognizable IID, there is a guarantee that 4rd will never interfere 
with any non-4rd protocol.  

OK?

Thats AFAIK an important feature.
I remember a discussion with Wojciech about this, which maybe he could confirm.

RD


> That is, after receiving an packet, the CE will check whether the IPv6 
> destination address matches its delegated prefix, and a 4rd IID exists. if 
> so, the packet will be processed by 4rd functionality. Otherwise, the packet 
> will be routed natively to some host attached in LAN.
> 
>> For this, even though CE IPv6 Prefix can be delegated to the CE, CE can not 
>> delegate any IPv6 prefixes matching to CE IPv6 Prefix to any hosts connected 
>> on the LAN side of the CE. Usually, if the CE can get an IPv6 prefix whose 
>> length is 56bit, CE can delegate an IPv6 prefix having the different prefix 
>> length (i.e. 64bit) to the hosts locating on the LAN side of the CE. But I 
>> don't think it can be working because the IPv6 destination matching to CE 
>> IPv6 prefix (delegated prefix) should be terminated at CPE for 4rd 
>> processing. So, in order to provide Dual-stack for the hosts locating on the 
>> LAN side of the CE, an additional IPv6 prefix different from CE IPv6 Prefix 
>> needs to be delegated.
> Please see my comments above, the 4rd and IPv6 services can share the same 
> delegated IPv6 prefix.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Jacni
> 
>> 
>> Is my understand correct?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Tetsuya Murakami
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Softwires mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

Reply via email to