Le 3 nov. 2011 à 10:14, <[email protected]> <[email protected]> a écrit :
> Hi Rémi, all, > > Since there is only an excerpt of e-mails, I lost the context. > > Could you please clarify what is the issue discussed here? Thanks. Sure. Right or wrong, I understood that what Jacni suggested is that the v4/v6 address mapping would be able to assign full IPv4 addresses to CEs, but no longer IPv4 prefixes. If I misunderstood, end of this subject for me. Otherwise, I argue that keeping IPv4-prefix support isn't difficult. Hope it clarifies. Cheers, RD > > Cheers, > Med > > > >> -----Message d'origine----- >> De : Rémi Després [mailto:[email protected]] >> Envoyé : jeudi 3 novembre 2011 10:05 >> À : Jacni Qin >> Cc : Alain Durand; Ole Troan; BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP; >> Satoru Matsushima; Softwires WG >> Objet : Keeping support of CE IPv4 prefixes in the v4/v6 >> address mapping? >> >> >> Le 3 nov. 2011 à 09:50, Jacni Qin a écrit : >>>>> if the MAP just covers "shared address with one single >> sharing ratio for one domain", >>>>> the design will be greatly simplified? >>>> Requiring ISPs to maintain IPv4 routing in their networks, >> just to serve the few users that need to keep IPv4 prefixes, >> seems to me a step backward. >>>> >>>> Besides, I have serious doubts about "greatly simplified". >>> I mean for the design of the address/port mapping >> algorithm, not the transport mechanism. >> >> Yes, but I don't see the great simplification of the algorithm. >> Keeping it general enough to support IPv4 prefixes is AFAIK >> easy. It doesn't prevent deployments where, IPv4 prefixes >> being not supported, fields can be at places that may be >> found more convenient. >> >> Maybe you can be more specific on your concern. >> >> Cheers, >> RD >> _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
