hi Yiu,
On 8/9/2011 10:28 AM, Lee, Yiu wrote:
Agree that the CE-CE communication will be possible for LW AFTR
because the rules are not store in the CE but in the LW AFTR.
But my main question is both technical are so similar, can we have a
session in 4rd to extend this special scenario rather than writing a
new draft for it?
Sorry, I don't follow and please correct me if I made mistakes,
In the LW AFTR approach, the CE gets its port range, and the LW AFTR
maintain the binding info. per user. The CE-CE communications have to
pass through LW AFTR. The LW AFTR forwards incoming traffics based on
the binding table.
In 4rd, the rule is identical within one domain (on both CEs, and BR),
then the CE can calculate Src/Dst of IPv6 encapsulation and route the
packets to the other CEs.
Cheers,
Jacni
From: Jacni Qin <ja...@jacni.com <mailto:ja...@jacni.com>>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 10:23:14 +0800
To: "Yiu L. LEE" <yiu_...@cable.comcast.com
<mailto:yiu_...@cable.comcast.com>>
Cc: Qiong <bingxu...@gmail.com <mailto:bingxu...@gmail.com>>,
"softwires@ietf.org <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>" <softwires@ietf.org
<mailto:softwires@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Clarification of the stateles/stateful discussion
Re-,
Since the "rules" are "maintained" in different ways, then the
forwarding behaviors, for incoming traffics and CE-CE etc., are
different, IMHO.
Cheers,
Jacni
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
