On 2012/02/07, at 16:46, Rémi Després wrote: --snip--
>>> >>>>>> I think that operators who already deploy such dual-stack network is >>>>>> supposed that they have address mapping table, >>>>> >>>>> I would rather suppose that ISPs that have added IPv6-prefix delegation, >>>>> say /56s, to an existing IPv4 network did it without mixing their IPv6 >>>>> plan with their IPv4 prefixes. >>>>> I am ready, however, to look seriously at individual cases where choices >>>>> were different. >>>> >>>> Basically provision MAP CE is based on its delegated IPv6 prefix in >>>> concept. It is opposed to your case but technically possible. >>> >>> >>>> Now I concern that it requires much complicated CE implementation. >>> >>> All what is required is that CEs set an address bit if hub&spoke topology >>> is required. >>> >> >> So how CE decide to set the bit, and when the CE figure it out? > > The CE knows it must set this bit if, and only if, it received at > initialization a Topology-variant parameter set to Hub&spoke (sec 4.1). > In this case, the CE sets bit 79 to 1 in IPv6 destination addresses of all > packets it sends. > > BTW, this bit should better, for clarity, be given a name, e.g. bit B meaning > To-BR bit (or whatever better idea one could propose). I plan to do it in the > next version. > So you mean that if the hub&spoke bit is set, a CE derives /112 IPv6 prefix as 4rd end point from IPv4 address which is already assigned. Otherwise, a CE derives its IPv4 address from delegated IPv6 prefix. right? cheers, --satoru _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
