> is whether to import these algorithm parameters EXPLICITLY into IPv6 >address or not. > Lw4o6 does not import anything into IPv6 address.
Nor does MAP in a typical deployment. IOW, MAP doesn't require IPv6 prefix assignment (or addressing policy) to be different from what it would be without MAP. It is about parsing part of IPv6 prefix such that it means something (for MAP). Cheers, Rajiv -----Original Message----- From: Qiong <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 10:22 AM To: Tom Taylor <[email protected]> Cc: Softwires-wg list <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Softwires] draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite and MAP >Dear Tom, > >On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Tom Taylor ><[email protected]> wrote: > >I figured it was time to pick on someone else, so I reviewed >draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite. I found it really easy to >understand, and all I found to change was a couple of typos. > >Of course, one reason lw4o6 easier to read than MAP is because it does >not describe a port mapping algorithm. The other reason is because the >MAP document has to describe the EA bits and their use. But that's a >fundamental difference between the two approaches, > and I can't see much chance to simplify MAP. The only possibility is to >change the provisioning approach to provision the Rule IPv6 prefix, the >complete shared IPv4 address, and the PSID explicitly, then describe how >to construct the MAP endpoint IPv6 address. > > >[Qiong] Right. You have just pointed out some essential differences >between MAP and lw4o6. > > >Actually, the major difference is not to use an algorithm or not . Even >for DS-Lite and NAT444, most vendors have already implemented some kind >of algorithm in AFTR to map between IPv6 address pool, IPv4 address pool >and port-set. The key here > is whether to import these algorithm parameters EXPLICITLY into IPv6 >address or not. Lw4o6 does not import anything into IPv6 address. The >AFTR can/or can not implement an algorithm for mapping between IPv6 >address pool, IPv4 address pool and port-set, which > is only an implementation choice. But it can truely gain more >flexibility for operators to use/define freely of their own IPv6 address, >and you can also achieve very good features like scalibility, no-NAT in >AFTR, reduced syslog messages, etc. > > >Besides, I have to say again that this solution is quite simple. Before >the demo in IETF85, most vendors only took 3~4 weeks to understand, >design, and finish implementing the whole functionalities. For operators, >we also find it very simple to > run it, just configuring your available IPv6 address pools, IPv4 address >pools and port-set quota is enough. > > >That's why we like it, and hope it will be helpful for more people. > > >Best wishes >Qiong > > > >Getting back to draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite, I'd say it's >ready to be adopted. > >Tom Taylor >_______________________________________________ >Softwires mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > > > > > > > >-- >============================================== >Qiong Sun >China Telecom Beijing Research Institude > > >Open source code: >lightweight 4over6: http://sourceforge.net/projects/laft6/ >PCP-natcoord: >http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcpportsetdemo/ ><http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcpportsetdemo/> >=============================================== > > > > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
