Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] New Version Notification for draft-xu-behave-hybrid-type-prefix-00

From: Xu Xiaohu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 10:04:03 +0800

Hi all,

We propose a new prefix called Hybrid Type Prefix for synthesizing
IPv4-embeded IPv6 address (i.e., IPv4-Converted IPv6 address). The Hybrid
Type Prefix integrates the benefits of the 
Well-Known Prefix (WKP) and Network Specific Prefix (NSP) defined in
[I-D.draft-ietf-behave-address-format].

With the Hybrid Type Prefix, the synthetic IPv6 addresses can be easily
distinguished from regular ones. Besides, Load-balancing among multiple
NAT64 can also be achieved easily.

The link is http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-xu-behave-hybrid-type-prefix-00

Any comment is welcomed.

Best wishes,
Xiaohu

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: IETF I-D Submission Tool [mailto:[email-masked]] 
发送时间: 2010年1月15日 16:55
收件人: [email-masked]
抄送: [email-masked]
主题: New Version Notification for draft-xu-behave-hybrid-type-prefix-00

A new version of I-D, draft-xu-behave-hybrid-type-prefix-00.txt has been
successfuly submitted by Xiaohu Xu and posted to the IETF repository.

Filename:	 draft-xu-behave-hybrid-type-prefix
Revision:	 00
Title:		 Hybrid Type Prefix for IPv4-Embedded IPv6 Addresses
Creation_date:	 2010-01-15
WG ID:		 Independent Submission
Number_of_pages: 8

Abstract:
To build IPv4-Embedded IPv6 addresses for IPv4/IPv6 translation, the 
Well-Known Prefix (WKP) and Network Specific Prefix (NSP)-based 
address formats have been defined in [Address-Format]. However, both 
of them have some limitations in several use cases. Hence, this 
document aims at discussing the validity of the use cases and assess 
the interest of the BEHAVE WG to meet the requirement of 
unambiguously distinguishing IPv4-Embedded IPv6 addresses from 
native IPv6 ones. Doing so would guide the address selection and 
therefore allow avoiding crossing unnecessary or even useless 
address family translators.  

Conventions used in this document 

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC-2119 [RFC2119].

The IETF Secretariat.