I don¹t understand his point. Let¹s put the 1:1 aside, MAP-E requires IPv4 rule to algorithmically build the CE IPv6 prefix. In lw4o6 Section 5.1, we simple put the v4 in the IID. Isn¹t it obviously there is no v4/v6 dependency? What Woj tries to argue? I lost. Can somebody explain to me please?
From: Wojciech Dec <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 at 6:48 AM To: Qi Sun <[email protected]> Cc: Softwires-wg WG <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Softwires] Proposed text that describes lw4o6 and map-e 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-sof twire-map> ]" is present. I do agree that there is top level prefix independence. Regards, Wojciech.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
