Re: [Int-area] RAO for IPv4

Exactly. There is no technical reason that forces a unified mapping, but 
it makes things simpler (which is always a good idea).

Jukka

On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Roland Bless wrote:

> Hi Thomas,
> 
> Thomas Narten wrote:
> > Why exactly is it necessary to have the IPv4 and IPv6 number space be
> > consistent? What is the technical requirement/benefit here?
> > 
> > My own sense is that this would be "nice to have", but it is certainly
> > not required, and I don't see that having the numbering space be strictly
> > synchronized as providing compelling technical benefit.
> > 
> > What am I missing?
> 
> I would say:
> If the numbers are aligned you don't need separate
> mapping tables for IPv4 and IPv6.
> The idea is that you map an NSLP ID, i.e. a an identifier
> for a specific signaling application like QoS NSLP or
> NAT/FW NSLP to an RAO value as demultiplexer.
> In this case you would only
> need one mapping table and not two different tables for
> v4/v6. Technically you can have separate v4/v6 RAO tables,
> but using only one would be easier to implement etc.
> 
> Roland
> 
>