Yuchi, > 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).
my point is that your LW46 mapping table will look exactly like the MAP 1:1 table. no? cheers, Ole > 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
