于 2011/10/6 17:39, Rémi Després 写道:
Hi Ole,
I just found I didn't answer this mail directly.
In case other exchanged mails wouldn't have answered the point, please see
below.
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?
I don't completely follow the proposal, and what you want to avoid.
In any case, the discussion should now focus on the proposed unified address
mapping.
Agreed?
In the case of double stateless translation, the IPv6 /128 should
contains [whole IPv4 address]+[PSID], while the encapsulation may not. xing
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.
Good, then.
Cheers,
RD
cheers,
Ole
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
