>> 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
the consequence of that is that the destination IPv6 address will change for every flow. the MAP node cannot any longer listen to a single IPv6 address for MAP traffic, but has to intercept packets for a whole prefix. cheers, Ole _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
