[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[RRG] Re: Different approaches for different protocols



3) CE routers that participate in the mapping database, will do this:

      Make ::<source-eid> into <source-locator>::<source-eid>
	Make ::<dest-eid> into <dest-locator>::<source-eid>

  where:
	<source-locator> is the CE's IPv6 address out of the address block
                       from the provider it is attached to
<dest-locator> is the locator returned from a mapping database
                       lookup for <dest-id>


I think I'm with you, but the results seem like too many bits. How about if <source-locator> is the routing goop (TM) associated with the CE's outbound interface?

Then you weren't following me. ;-) The concatenation above is a 128-bit value broken up into a <locator>::<eid>. Note the "::" because there is likely 0 bits in the middle.

Your definition above says that a source-locator is an IPv6 address. Since that's already 128 bits, concatenating a few more seems like it gives you an overflow.

Sorry about that, it was really a typo and not what I intended. Should say "is the CE's locator", which means 8-bytes of prefix that is associated with it's attached SP.

Also, please allow for the case of a CE being multi-homed.

Definitely. That goes without saying.

Dino

--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg