Remi, >>>> what are the requirements for a globally unique interface-id? how is it >>>> going to be used? >>>> both for encapsulation and translation? >>> >>> In both cases, the CE node can recognize 4rd packets, and process them as >>> such, without preempting any IID value that might be a legitimate value for >>> a host behind the CE. > > This is my answer to your first (double) question. > If it is not enough, as suggested below, please explain what you don't > understand.
I specifically do not want a solution that changes forwarding behaviour for _all_ IPv6 packets. e.g. looking at 24 bits in the middle of an IPv6 address is such a change. I don't understand what requirements you are basing this 'solution' on. if the 4rd / dIVI CE takes (a well known or provisioned) /64 prefix out of the delegated prefix. then why do you need any of that? note that I'm not arguing against having a defined IID for dIVI/4rd, that's nice for pretty printing like what we do for ISATAP. cheers, Ole _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
