Le 2012-12-12 à 17:18, Roger Jørgensen <rog...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Suresh Krishnan > <suresh.krish...@ericsson.com> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> The 4rd draft (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-4rd-04) >> describes a solution for providing IPv4 connectivity over IPv6. The >> draft describes the method for mapping 4rd IPv4 addresses to 4rd IPv6 >> Addresses. It uses a 4rd specific mark called the V octet in the first 8 >> bits of the Interface Identifier. There were some concerns raised in >> softwire about whether such addresses are actually compatible with the >> IPv6 addressing architecture. Whether this is actually compatible with >> the IPv6 addressing architecture is outside the scope of the softwire >> wg. Hence we would like to hear the 6man wg's perspective on this. I >> would like to request the wg to please go over the NOTE in Section 4.5 >> page 18, which explains the issue, and over IANA Considerations Section >> 6, and chime in on whether this is acceptable from a 6man perspective. > > Beside all the other concern being rised that question this draft I > have a hard time finding any reason for why we need yet another > mapping system. Can we limit the discussion in 6man to what concerns IPv6 address formats? (Restarting here the lengthy Softwire discussion would be a waste of time.) Thanks, RD > > > -- > > Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE > rog...@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! > http://www.jorgensen.no | ro...@jorgensen.no > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
