Hi Qi,
On 12 March 2014 11:23, Qi Sun <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Woj, > > Technically, that statement is accurate, for there is no IPv4 address and > port set embedded in the IPv6 prefix in lw4over6, no matter what type of > provisioning methods (dhcpv6/dhcpv4ov6/pcp) is used. > Not on reading section 5.1 of : http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-07 Where text like "The /128 prefix is then constructed in the same manner as [ I-D.ietf-softwire-map<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-07#ref-I-D.ietf-softwire-map>]" is present. I do agree that there is top level prefix independence. Regards, Wojciech. > > Best Regards, > Qi > > > On 2014-3-12, at 下午5:25, Wojciech Dec wrote: > > Hi Qi, > > thanks, but I'd rather stick with the text that we proposed and > (lengthily) discussed at the meeting, i.e.: > > "Lightweight 4over6 provides a solution for a hub-and-spoke softwire > architecture only, where the lwAFTR maintains (softwire) state for each > subscriber. [I-D.ietf-softwire-map] offers > a means for reducing the amount of such state by using algorithmic IPv4 > to IPv6 address mappings to create aggregate rules. This also gives the > option of direct meshed IPv4 connectivity between subscribers." > > Note: Your text is different to the above, and claims "complete > independence" which is not accurate in view of the fact that lw46 DOES > embed the IPv4 address in the IPv6 address. In terms of embedding stuff in > the "prefix part" (i.e. the top /64), both solutions allow "complete prefix > independence", so that's a null point. > > Regards, > Wojciech. > > > > On 12 March 2014 08:51, Qi Sun <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Hi all, >> >> According to the discussion last Friday, there should be some text >> describing the characteristics of lw4o6 and map-e with cross-referece, and >> the text should be the same (or almost the same). >> >> The two points that are requested to be in the text: >> * MAP-E achieves aggregated rules >> * MAP-E does mesh >> >> Here is the proposal: >> >> In lw4o6 draft, section of Introduction: >> Lightweight 4over6 provides a solution with complete independence of IPv4 >> and IPv6 addressing (i.e., the IPv6 prefix does not embed an IPv4 address >> and/or port set). This is accomplished by maintaining state for each >> softwire (per-subscriber state) in the lwAFTR and using a hub-and-spoke >> architecture whereby all traffic traverse the lwAFTR. [I-D.ietf-softwire- >> map] offers a means for reducing the amount of such state by using >> algorithmic IPv4 to IPv6 address mappings to create aggregate rules. This >> also gives the option of direct, meshed IPv4 connectivity between >> subscribers. >> >> In MAP-E draft, section of Introduction: >> MAP-E offers a means for reducing the amount state held in the BR by >> using algorithmic IPv4 to IPv6 address mappings to create aggregate rules. >> This also gives the option of direct, meshed IPv4 connectivity between >> subscribers. Lightweight 4over6 [I-D.ietf-softwire-lw4over6] provides a >> solution with complete independence of IPv4 and IPv6 addressing >> (i.e., the IPv6 prefix does not embed an IPv4 address and/or port set). >> This is >> accomplished by maintaining state for each softwire (per-subscriber state) >> in the lwAFTR and using a hub-and-spoke architecture whereby all traffic >> traverse the lwAFTR. >> >> The above text has been agreed by the lw4over6 co-authors. >> @Woj, could you please see if the the proposal resolves your concern? >> Thanks! >> >> >> Best Regards, >> Qi >> >> >> > >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
