Hi, Woj, This is not only about determining which parameter to explicitly exist in MAP rule, but also the configuration in BR. If you include PSID explicitly, then 1) you need to configure per-subscriber rule in BR since the value of PSID for different CPEs are different. This will take a lot of workload for operators and it is obviously not the objective of any stateless solution. 2) IPv6 prefix has already carry the PSID implicitly, and the PSID in MAP rule is redundant. Therefore, I don't see the reason to include PSID explicitly in MAP architecture.
Best wishes Qiong Wojciech Dec <wdec.i...@gmail.com>编写： >Remi, > >On 20 July 2012 17:03, Rémi Després <despres.r...@laposte.net> 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 >> Softwires@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >Softwires mailing list >Softwires@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
