Remi, > In a use case described in the 4rd-U draft (sec 5.3), an ISP replaces its > dual-stack routing by IPv6-only routing. > For this, independently from the number of IPv4 prefixes it has to support, > it uses only one mapping rule. > (By replacing each IPv4 route by an equivalent IPv6 route, it ensures that > all customers keep their IPv4 addresses.) > > For this to work, the 4rd-U draft has a bit that, in the hub&spoke case, > differs between CE-to-BR and BR-to-CE directions. Thus, packets sent to a CE > take different routes depending on whether sent by a CE or a BR. > > I don't see how the equivalent could work with the MAP documents you edited. > Is it that such a use case is out of scope for MAP? > Or did I miss something?
injecting IPv4 routing into the IPv6 routing table is considered a bad idea. that was what caused Automatic tunnelling and IPv4 compatible address in RFC1933 to be deprecated. cheers, Ole _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
