Ole, IMHO the WG will need to decide whether EA=0 should be covered at all. If not, then the draft could explicitly mention EA must be > 0 and must contain v4 information in the CE address. If the WG decided this needed to be cover, I would recommend to have a new draft to cover it and leave EA=0 undefined in the base draft.
Thanks, Yiu On 7/26/12 6:22 AM, "Ole Trøan" <otr...@employees.org> wrote: >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 >>> >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
