Le 2012-07-24 à 12:46, Ole Trøan a écrit : >> 1. No, 4rd doesn't have the same problem as MAP concerning sites that use >> subnet 0. >> Wojciech, if you see a reason why a site should renumber its subnet 0 to >> use 4rd, please explain. > > because no-one will ever do this?
Assuming that details that follow mean that an expert can configure a node with an address that isn't unauthorized by any RFC, and in particular a 4rd-reserved address, that's acknowledged. But nothing specific needs to be done, in 4rd not more than in any specification, to make hand-configured unauthorized addresses to work properly. The difference between 4rd and MAP, in this respect, is as you know that MAP addresses can conflict with *authorized* host addresses. This is AFAIK the reason for your suggesting that sites that use subnet 0 be renumbered to support MAP. RD > > gomlefisk: otroan$ sudo ifconfig en1 inet6 2001:db8:0:0:0300::1/64 > gomlefisk: otroan$ ifconfig en1 > en1: flags=8863<UP,BROADCAST,SMART,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1400 > ether 00:26:bb:1a:77:2e > inet6 fe80::226:bbff:fe1a:772e%en1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x6 > inet 10.147.112.88 netmask 0xfffffc00 broadcast 10.147.115.255 > inet6 2001:db8::300:0:0:1 prefixlen 64 > media: autoselect > status: active > gomlefisk: otroan$ > > cheers, > Ole > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
