Le 2012-02-07 à 13:16, Ole Trøan a écrit : > 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.
- Reference? - Should we take it, then, that you reject moving from DS routing to IPV6-only routing without address/prefix changes as a use case you are interested in? RD > > cheers, > Ole _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
