2013/1/29 Qi Sun <[email protected]> > > Woj , > > the IPv4 and PSID in the IID are particularly useful in cases of address > independence (ie 1:1). > > > Now that IPv4 and PSID is put in the IPv6 address, why is it a case of > address independence? >
IPv4-address independent MAP rule .. ;-) - maoke > > > Best Regards, > Qi Sun > > > On 2013-1-28, at 下午9:51, Wojciech Dec wrote: > > Hi, > > the IPv4 and PSID in the IID are particularly useful in cases of address > independence (ie 1:1). As said previously, the benefit is primarily in the > ability an operational facilitation, where an operator can easily > see/observe what IPv4 and PSID is being used by a given customer. This is > easier than to look at the v6 prefix and use some magic decoder ring. > In addition, it has the desirable characteristic of creating an IID. > > +1 Thus to keeping the IPv4 and PSID, likely in a fixed length (16 bit) > field format. > > Regards, > Woj. > > On 24 January 2013 16:27, Ole Troan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> hi, >> >> can we please keep discussion on the list. not via the issue tracker? >> >> does anyone else have an opinion? >> (if I don't hear anything from anyone else, I'll default to keep current >> text.) >> >> cheers, >> Ole >> >> On Jan 24, 2013, at 17:23 , softwire issue tracker < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> > #19: IPv4 address superfluous in MAP-E Interface IDs >> > >> > Changes (by [email protected]): >> > >> > * priority: trivial => major >> > * status: closed => reopened >> > * resolution: wontfix => >> > >> > >> > Comment: >> > >> > Value of having the PSID in MAP-E IIDs for maintenance isn't clear at >> all: >> > - PSID length isn't determined in IIDs (there can be an unknown number >> of >> > trailing zeroes) >> > - all PSID bits are already readable in the first 64 bits >> > >> > Suggestion to close the issue: >> > - keep IPv4 addresses in IIDs (they contains some bits that aren't in >> the >> > first 64 bits) >> > - don't keep the PSID in IIDs (insufficiently justified complexity) >> > >> > -- >> > >> -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- >> > Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-softwire- >> > [email protected] | [email protected] >> > Type: defect | Status: reopened >> > Priority: major | Milestone: >> > Component: map-e | Version: >> > Severity: Candidate | Resolution: >> > WG Document | >> > Keywords: | >> > >> -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > Ticket URL: < >> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/softwire/trac/ticket/19#comment:4> >> > softwire <http://tools.ietf.org/softwire/> >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Softwires mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >> > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > > > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
