hi Remi,
On 11/3/2011 5:04 PM, Rémi Després wrote:
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.
Right, and I have already mentioned that in my previous message, the
prefix case can be inherently supported. I just said that in the context
of IPv4 address shortage, it may be not reasonable.
If the sharing ratio is unique, then it'll be easily to be calculated,
some parameter is not required in the MAP Rule. And the simplicity can
also mean straightforward to implementers and addressing planners, which
IMHO is important for the solution to be accepted easily in practice.
Cheers,
Jacni
Maybe you can be more specific on your concern.
Cheers,
RD
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
