For the first case where we would allow multiple Rule IPv4 prefixes per single Rule IPv6 prefix, I agree that downstream lookup would be problematic. But don't we even have a problem even before we get to that point...The whole scenario presuppose that the two (or more) CEs would need the same delegated IPv6 prefix - this process can be independent of MAP and the IA-PD is assigned for example via DHCP server (plain IPv6 address assignment). It is simply not doable that a DHCP server hands out the same DHCP leases to two different clients. It seemed to me that this was not that big of a deal in this discussion and I just wanted to make sure I'm not missing anything.
For the overlapping cases I think as long as the bits from the shortest Rule IPv6 prefix length all the way to the PD length are unique, things should work but carving out non-overlapping subnets,ports may be bigger trouble for the operators than not . why /56 instead of /52? :P => yes I agree it would be less wasteful. Kris From: Senthil Sivakumar (ssenthil) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 11:34 AM To: Maoke Cc: Poscic, Kristian (Kristian); [email protected] Subject: Re: [Softwires] MAP-E/T overlaping ranges and domains Hi Maoke, Please see inline for Senthil2 From: Maoke <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 5:21 AM To: Senthil Sivakumar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "Poscic, Kristian (Kristian)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [Softwires] MAP-E/T overlaping ranges and domains hi Senthil, interesting discussion. see inline. 2012/12/11 Senthil Sivakumar (ssenthil) <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
