Le 2012-07-25 à 09:55, Ole Trøan a écrit : > Remi, > >>> 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. > > just like any interface address can conflict with any other. > MAP uses a single address out of the first subnet in a delegation. the > probability of collision even if it was shared with native hosts is > reasonably small. > > your view of the effect of reserving some bits in the middle of the > interface-id for the purpose of 4rd seems quite overstated to me. nor do I > follow your use of "authorized / unauthorized" interface-ids. > > the solution proposed in MAP may not be perfect. it is a tradeoff.
> 4rd suggests another tradeoff that in my view, has much wider consequences. Such wider consequences haven't been identified so far, despite the fact that the subject has been around for quite some time, and despite that the varied origins of supporters of the design. > take it to 6man. 6man has to be involved, sure, but Softwire should first be clear about the purpose, and possible drawbacks if any. If you see such drawbacks, please clarify. Thanks, RD > > cheers, > Ole > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
