Yiu, > Set EA bits=0 only saves bits in v6 address and decouples v4/v6 address > dependency. It doesn't bring any new function compared to embedding full > v4 address in the EA-bit. However, the operation models of EA-bit>0 or =0 > are very different. By the way, this works only for MAP-E. I fail to see > why we want to include this in the base spec.
what do you say in the spec if EA=0 and provisioned IPv4 prefix length = 32. the spec has to say something about this to be complete. cheers, Ole > > Thanks, > Yiu > > > On 7/25/12 9:45 PM, "Satoru Matsushima" <satoru.matsush...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Yiu, >> >> On 2012/07/26, at 4:08, Lee, Yiu wrote: >> >>> Ole, >>> >>> Where can I get the formal definition of 1:1 mode? My understanding of >>> 1:1 >>> refers to one public IPv4 address per subscriber but you refer very >>> specific to decoupling IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. >>> >> >> It doesn't 1:1 in MAP and 4rd context, because embedding full ipv4 >> address in ea-bits is as a result of prefix allocation operation. >> >>> Before MAP was accepted as WG item, MAP was proposed to embed IPv4 >>> address >>> information (EA bits > 0) in the CE IPv6 address to achieve stateless. >> >> No, there was no such definition for EA-bits length restriction. >> >>> Now there is a new proposal to add a new feature to have the IPv4 >>> information >>> in the BR only. This change requires to provision individual subscriber >>> information to the BR (instead of aggregated information). Benefit are >>> saving bits and breaking v4 and v6 address dependency. >> >> There's no change from previous spec, to just clarify MAP, as a stateless >> solution, could naturally support most granular mapping rule in its >> nature. >> >>> >>> Questions to WG: >>> Is it useful feature to be included in MAP? If not, why and alternative? >>> >> >> I believe that it does not make sense to restrict EA-len > 0 for both MAP >> and 4rd. It does make sense that you see MAP as framework of solutions >> which covers specific 1:1 solution by the mapping algorithm. >> >> cheers, >> --satoru >> >> >>> Thanks, >>> Yiu >>> >>> On 7/25/12 2:40 PM, "Ole Trøan" <otr...@employees.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Yiu, >>>> >>>>> I am not asking whether MAP supports 1:1 mode with no EA bits or not. >>>>> I >>>>> am >>>>> asking MAP allows to embed the 32-bit address in the EA bits to >>>>> achieve >>>>> 1:1 mode: >>>>> >>>>> "The EA bits can contain a full or part >>>>> of an IPv4 prefix or address, and in the shared IPv4 address case >>>>> contains a Port-Set Identifier (PSID)." >>>>> >>>>> Why not use this instead? >>>> >>>> you can do either. >>>> embedding a complete IPv4 address and PSID does require a lot of IPv6 >>>> space though. >>>> e.g. /56 - 32 - 6 = /18 >>>> >>>> 1:1 mode is typically referred to a model where IPv4 and IPv6 >>>> addressing >>>> are independent. >>>> >>>> cheers, >>>> Ole >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
