Let me try again: Basic fact: IPv6 address is 128 bits. If you put in the IPv4 address in the IID, then it becomes part of the 128 bit IPv6 address. Claiming that there is complete independence (no linkage) between the IPv4 addresses and IPv6 address is then not correct. If you see it another way, then it would be interesting to understand why. What I think Qi was/is trying to say is that there is prefix independence, with prefix being the part of the IPv6 address less the IID. That I agree with. It is the same in lw46 and MAP-E
Side note: The "MAP-E" algorithm derives a PSID and port ranges. That's it. This PSID, along with trailing bits of the IPv4 address *may* get inserted in MAP-E into the non IID IPv6 prefix and this is unique to MAP-E. Hope it helps. On 12 March 2014 12:41, Lee, Yiu <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't understand his point. Let's 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. Isn't 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-softwire-map>]" > is present. > > I do agree that there is top level prefix independence. > > Regards, > Wojciech. >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
