Well, yeah, so the following text should do: Both solutions allow for IPv6 prefix independence, i.e.the IPv6 prefix does not embed an IPv4 address and/or port set
? Cheers, Wojciech. On 12 March 2014 11:27, <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Woj, > > > > The text in Qi's proposal is explicit about what is meant by complete > independence between IPv4 and IPv6 addressing: "the IPv6 prefix does not > embed an IPv4 address and/or port set)". The text is about IPv6 prefix > assigned to the CPE; that prefix does not embed an IPv4 address nor a port > set. > > > > This is a trivial point IMHO. > > > > Cheers, > > Med > > > > *De :* Softwires [mailto:[email protected]] *De la part de*Wojciech > Dec > *Envoyé :* mercredi 12 mars 2014 10:26 > *À :* Qi Sun > *Cc :* Softwires-wg WG > *Objet :* Re: [Softwires] Proposed text that describes lw4o6 and map-e > > > > 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
