Correct. Thanks Maoke. On 29 January 2013 07:14, Maoke <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > 2013/1/29 Maoke <[email protected]> > >> >> >> 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 >> > > sorry IPv4-address independent MAP rule-IPv6-prefix. :P - 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
