Hi Ian, here's an updated proposal. Besides lining up the text on the prefix independence, I also edited out some redundant text...
Lightweight 4over6 is a solution designed specifically for complete independence between IPv6 subnet prefix and IPv4 address with or without IPv4 address sharing. This is accomplished by maintaining state for each softwire (per-subscriber state) in the lwAFTR and a hub-and-spoke forwarding architecture. [I-D.ietf-softwire-map] offers the same capabilities along with means for reducing the amount of such state using address mappings rules, which however introduce a relation between the IPv6 subnet prefix and IPv4 address. This relation also allows optional meshed connectivity between users. Cheers, Wojciech. On 13 March 2014 09:00, Ian Farrer <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Woj, > > Can we resolve this with the following wording change? > > Old: > 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). > > New: > Lightweight 4over6 is a solution designed specifically for complete > independence between IPv6 subnet prefix and IPv4 address with/without CPE > v4 address sharing. > > The complete paragraph with the proposed change would then read: > > Lightweight 4over6 is a solution designed specifically for complete > independence between IPv6 subnet prefix and IPv4 address with/without CPE > v4 address sharing. > 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. > > If not, please can you suggest an alternative wording? > > Cheers, > Ian > > > > > On 12 Mar 2014, at 13:00, Wojciech Dec <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > > >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
