hi,
On 11/3/2011 5:24 PM, Rémi Després wrote:
Le 3 nov. 2011 à 10:04, Ole Troan a écrit :
...
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.
can you clarify why this? I don't understand why IPv4 routing has to be
maintained just because there is a MAP domain with full IPv4 addresses (or a
rule for full IPv4 addresses)?
I didn't say that.
IF the address mapping can't assign IPv4 prefixes to CEs, AND IF an ISP has to
support some users needing IPv4 prefixes, it needs a tool to do it.
I supposed that maintaining IPv4 routing was the easiest way to do it.
If you have a better alternative, what would it be?
If the customer is likely to pay that much for a prefix, I guess these
won't be a problem any more. For example, just setup a dedicated tunnel
and add a piece of route for them.
Cheers,
Jacni
As said to Med, if I misunderstood Jacni's idea, this debate can be closed.
Cheers,
RD
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
