On 29/09/2011 14:53, "Ole Troan" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Remi,
>
>>> 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.
>
> not so much so for encapsulation. since the 4rd tunnel end point address is
> one of the CE's own addresses, the interface-id only matters for pretty
> printing and if features/classifiers are applied in the middle of the tunnel.
The v4-address in the interface-id matters for a) the address matching
features b) consistency with rfc6052 esp in the 1:1 address mapped case.
-Woj.
>
> cheers,
> Ole
>
>
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
