hi On 10/17/2011 8:26 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Hi, > This is my command in line. > >> >>> therefore my answer to Q1, is NO, unless we carefully select >>> IPv4 addresses for CEs with giving up to use some of them, which >>> have been so precious. >>> Q2. then it must fine as long as we map them to different Rule >>> IPv6 Prefix. (?) >>> suppose CE1 is the same as (1). for 64.32../16, we use a longer >>> stuff. >>> however, there is a CE3: >>> Rule IPv6 Prefix B: 20010db8 (2001:db8::/29) >>> CE3 IPv4 address: 4020 1876 (64.32.24.118) >>> CE3 PSID: 54 >>> CE3 CE index: 987654 >>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>> (3) CE3 IPv6 prefix: 20010db 987654 (2001:db9:8765:4000::/52, >>> woops!) >>> ambiguity happens. then we may argue: using the ugly >>> Rule_IPv6_Prefix_B is the root of the problem! we have not to >>> use a prefix covered by another. >> No, I think the bits of the same position are not additive. So, >> it should be a delegated prefix of "/53", right? >> >> >> :P sorry for the typo but i have pointed out in the errata. :P >> however, even though this is /53, and you will have, in the route >> table, both >> 2001:db9:8765:4000::/52 => route to CE1 >> 2001:db9:8765:4000::/53 => route to CE3 >> >> but for the packet encapsulated with the destination address >> 2001:db9:8765:4000::200:5efe, you couldn't decide the route should go >> to CE3 instead of CE1. here the longest-match doesn't work. right? > I guess the second delegated prefix should be 2001:db8:1876:5400::/53 > I guess the second delegated prefix should be 2011:db8:c3b2:a000::/53. Oops, sorry. ;-)
> Because the CE3 Rule IPv6 Prefix length is not mulitipe of 4 bits,it > need calculate using Binary as follows. > > v(/29) > --elipsis(0x2001 0db)--1000 (2011:db8::/29) > --elipsis(0x4020)------ 000 1100 0011 1011 0 (64.32.24.118) > 010 1010 0 (PSID 0x54) > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > CE3 IPv6 prefix: 2001:db8:c3b2:a000::/53 > > If the CE3 IPv4 address is 64.32.48.236, CE3 PSID is 0xa8, calculate > as follows, > v(/29) > --elipsis(0x2001 0db)--1000 (2011:db8::/29) > --elipsis(0x4020)------ 001 1000 0111 0110 0 (64.32.48.236) > 101 0100 0 (PSID 0xa8) > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > the CE3 IPv6 prefix is 2001:db9:8765:4000::/53 > > I think this should be not gonna happen, since the IPv6 address > planing must be done natively > considering nothing about the IPv4 address. As exclusiveness, each CE > has unique CE IPv6 Prefix. > > As described in the example Maoke given, since "Rule IPv6 Prefix B" is > contained in the "Rule IPv6 Prefix A", > if the IPv6 addresses under Rule IPv6 Prefix A and the IPv6 address > under Rule IPv6 prefix B are assigned independently > and have any consideration each other, same CE IPv6 prefix assigning > to different CEs may be happen. I think this MUST be > avoided when designing the mapping rules or setting the IPv6 assigning > way(such as DHCPv6 etc.). > The address assignment under one given prefix should be done with considerations to avoid conflicts. Cheers, Jacni > Cheers > > Chunfa > >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
