Hi Ole,
I'm not so sure what you want to point out with the example. Of course I can
show an example of binding table on the AFTR, but I wonder why and what can be
achieved to do that here. The quote you made is just trying to figure out that
the notion of 'mapping' in MAP is different from 'binding' in DS-Lite/Lw4over6
(it's not just a literal difference as I said).
Best regards!
Yuchi Chen
From: Ole Trøan
Date: 2012-11-13 21:46
To: chenycmx
CC: Satoru Matsushima; softwires WG
Subject: Re: [Softwires] MAP-E 1:1 for HA
> [Yuchi] Actually there is a 'binding' table on the AFTR, which maintains
> matching between v4 A+P and v6 A, and there's no 'mapping with address and
> port' in DS-Lite or Lw4over6 as in MAP. The main point here is not about the
> literal difference between 'binding' and 'mapping', but the difference
> between decoupling v4 & v6 and coupling v4 & v6.
let us assume we have a 1.1.1.0/24 for address sharing available with 256 ports
per user.
in MAP 1:1 you'd have:
1.1.1.1:01/40 -> 2001:db8::1
1.1.1.1:02/40 -> 2001:db8::2
1.1.1.1:03/40 -> 2001:db8::3
.
.
.
64K rules.
in MAP aggregated mode you have:
1.1.1.0/24 -> 2001:db8:XXXX::/48
can you please show how the LW46 rules / binding /mapping whatever you call
them look like for 1:1 mode?
cheers,
Ole
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
