2011/11/7, Rémi Després <[email protected]>: > Ole, > > 1. Checksum neutrality being an open question, it is relevant here. > 2. It is useful AFAIK to distinguish CE addresses from BR addresses. > > The best proposal I know so far is as follows (with CNP = Checksum > neutrality preserver) > > CE ADDRESS > > <- - - - - - IPv6 Unformatted address (104 bits) - - - -> > +-------------------+----------+----------+---------------+ > | Rule IPv6 prefix |IPv4 suff.| Max PSID | Padding = 0 | > +-------------------+----------+----------+---------------+ > : > :<- - - - - - - - - 64 - - - - - >:<- - - - 40 - - - - ->: > : :\ \ > : <8> :<- 16 -> > : : : : : > +----------------------------------'-'----------------------+--------+ > | IPv6 unformatted address (part 1)|V| | CNP | > > +----------------------------------+-+----------------------+--------+ > <- - - - - - - - - - - IPv6 address (108 bits) - - - - - - - - - - > > > > > BR ADDRESS > > +------------------------------------+-+-----------------+-+-------+ > | BR IPv6 prefix |V| IPv4 address |0| CNP | > +------------------------------------+-+-----------------+-+-------+ > < - - - - - - - - - 64 - - - - - - ><8><- - - 32 - - -><8>< 16 > >
+1 The checksum neutrality is desirable for translation case. I suggest to take above format into consideration BRs Gang _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
