I am ok with that. I guess I was confused by the phase "they have to deploy MAP over this for 4over6 traversal". I assume "this" refers to 6o4 tunneling technique. If somebody wants to implement MAP and 6rd on the same edge router, i don't see any problem. This is similar to implement NAT44 and NAT64 on the same network element.
Cheers, Yiu On Feb 7, 2012, at 23:11, "Linjian Song" <[email protected]> wrote: > I guess several scenarios may overlap in one network topology. MAP and 6rd > functions can be built on a certain edge router？ > > -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 代表 > Lee, Yiu > 发送时间: 2012年2月8日 10:37 > 收件人: Tina TSOU; Rajiv Asati (rajiva) > 抄送: [email protected] > 主题: Re: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan > > May I ask a question. Why will people deploy MAP over another tunnel > schema such as 6rd? > > On 2/7/12 1:27 PM, "Tina TSOU" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Now if they have to deploy MAP over this for 4over6 traversal, is MAP >> always independent of whether 6to4 was used or 6rd used.....because the >> prefix delegation is different in each. >> > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
