Remi, On 20 July 2012 17:03, Rémi Després <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, Wojciech, > > 2012-07-20 12:56, Wojciech Dec: > > If the use of PSIDs in rules is useful, as it appears to be, > > > This is the point that needs to be explained. > The case is straightforward A+P. For a single IPv4 address + port range it is desired to have it correspond to an IPv6 address. MAP and 4rd-u have that as a well established case with the IPv4 address and / or PSID being mapped into the IPv6 prefix, but the IPv4 address not given that it is configured on both sides (implicit). There is nothing in the MAP architecture which restricts the PSID to not be such an implicit parameter given that it can be configured at either side. -Woj. > Thanks. > RD > > > then there seems to be no reason not to allow that. > > Regards, > Woj. > > >> >> - maoke >> >> >>> >>> Regards, >>> Woj. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > > >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
