Hi Congxiao, Thanks for your comment. Please sea inline. Le 2 oct. 2011 à 08:58, Qiong a écrit :
> Hi Ole and Remi, > > > 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. Having a recognizable field in the IID doesn't imply any change of forwarding behavior (still done on up to /64s). > > 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? > > Qiong : I agree that routing lookup for a provisioned /64 prefix would be > better that extracting certain bits for each IPv6 address in CE. This would > bring less change to existing routing model. Having a recognizable field in the IID doesn't change the possibility to lookup for a provisioned /64 prefix. It only opens the ADDITIONAL possibility to recognize IPv4 addresses without knowledge of any IPv6 prefix. This is useful in particular in use cases where: - some ALGs are enforced by devices that can't do prefix matching - the same IPv6 prefixes are used for real IPv6 addresses and embedded IPv4 addresses. MORE GENERAL (open to more use cases without excluding any). Hope it clarifies, Regards, RD > > Best wishes > > Qiong > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
