2013/1/29 Maoke <fib...@gmail.com> > > > 2013/1/29 Qi Sun <sunqi.csnet....@gmail.com> > >> >> Woj , >> >> the IPv4 and PSID in the IID are particularly useful in cases of address >> independence (ie 1:1). >> >> >> Now that IPv4 and PSID is put in the IPv6 address, why is it a case of >> address independence? >> > > IPv4-address independent MAP rule .. ;-) - maoke >
sorry IPv4-address independent MAP rule-IPv6-prefix. :P - maoke > > >> >> >> Best Regards, >> Qi Sun >> >> >> On 2013-1-28, at 下午9:51, Wojciech Dec wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> the IPv4 and PSID in the IID are particularly useful in cases of address >> independence (ie 1:1). As said previously, the benefit is primarily in the >> ability an operational facilitation, where an operator can easily >> see/observe what IPv4 and PSID is being used by a given customer. This is >> easier than to look at the v6 prefix and use some magic decoder ring. >> In addition, it has the desirable characteristic of creating an IID. >> >> +1 Thus to keeping the IPv4 and PSID, likely in a fixed length (16 bit) >> field format. >> >> Regards, >> Woj. >> >> On 24 January 2013 16:27, Ole Troan <otr...@employees.org> wrote: >> >>> hi, >>> >>> can we please keep discussion on the list. not via the issue tracker? >>> >>> does anyone else have an opinion? >>> (if I don't hear anything from anyone else, I'll default to keep current >>> text.) >>> >>> cheers, >>> Ole >>> >>> On Jan 24, 2013, at 17:23 , softwire issue tracker < >>> trac+softw...@tools.ietf.org> wrote: >>> >>> > #19: IPv4 address superfluous in MAP-E Interface IDs >>> > >>> > Changes (by remi.desp...@free.fr): >>> > >>> > * priority: trivial => major >>> > * status: closed => reopened >>> > * resolution: wontfix => >>> > >>> > >>> > Comment: >>> > >>> > Value of having the PSID in MAP-E IIDs for maintenance isn't clear at >>> all: >>> > - PSID length isn't determined in IIDs (there can be an unknown number >>> of >>> > trailing zeroes) >>> > - all PSID bits are already readable in the first 64 bits >>> > >>> > Suggestion to close the issue: >>> > - keep IPv4 addresses in IIDs (they contains some bits that aren't in >>> the >>> > first 64 bits) >>> > - don't keep the PSID in IIDs (insufficiently justified complexity) >>> > >>> > -- >>> > >>> -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- >>> > Reporter: | Owner: draft-ietf-softwire- >>> > remi.desp...@free.fr | m...@tools.ietf.org >>> > Type: defect | Status: reopened >>> > Priority: major | Milestone: >>> > Component: map-e | Version: >>> > Severity: Candidate | Resolution: >>> > WG Document | >>> > Keywords: | >>> > >>> -------------------------+------------------------------------------------- >>> > >>> > Ticket URL: < >>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/softwire/trac/ticket/19#comment:4> >>> > softwire <http://tools.ietf.org/softwire/> >>> > >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Softwires mailing list >>> Softwires@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Softwires mailing list >> Softwires@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Softwires mailing list >> Softwires@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
