Dear Gang,
Thanks, but I failed to find the text describing how to handle two fragments
received by two distinct BRs.
Could you please point me to that text in case I miss it?
Cheers,
Med
-Message d'origine-
De : GangChen [mailto:phdg...@gmail.com]
Envoyé : jeudi 22 mars 2012 08:33
À
Dear Med,
Yes. There are no texts targeting to this topics.
I mean we could leverage the consideration in 4rd-U to build a entry
table. One more REDIRECTION action obviously should be added to the
row of RESULTING ACTIONS. Any received fragment looking for
conditions and execute a proper
Hi all
This mail raises a very important issue. MAP-T and MAP-E are not
competing technologies. They have different user scenarios. I read 4rd-u
draft and found it is flawed. I will not support the adoption of 4rd-u,
since there is no running code and there is no experimental evaluation. In
Hello Chairs, all
In essence, while at a very high level all solutions appear to solve a
common problem, just like all ducks look the same, some solve extra
problems that are of critical importance to some operators, this forms the
basis for the different approaches, and what led to the MAP draft
On 3/20/12 12:38 AM, Alain Durand wrote:
Q1: Without pre-supposing which one will be selected, do you agree to
publish 1 of the 3 proposals on the Standard Track and publish the
other(s) as Informational if still asked to?
If the answer is NO, then the process stops and we will publish
+1, support
Best regards
--
Name:Zhankao WEN(温占考)
Email: w...@synet.edu.cn
w...@mail.neu.edu.cn
TelFax: +86-24-83687240
Address: Networking Center Northeastern University
Shenyang Liaoning Province P.R. China (110819)
- Original Message -
From: Xing Li
I am disappointed with this approach.
Despite the support, the WG adoption of MAP documents has been delayed for
a label reason. I find it unfair since the label can be changed any time
until the IESG review. How can it be a hold-up?
One would have to wonder the intent of forming the design team
Hi, Remi,
于 2012/3/19 21:22, Rémi Després 写道:
Hi, Xing,
I look forward to face to face discussions in Paris if we don't
clarify everything before that (I will be busy on something else in
the next 3 days).
Le 2012-03-18 à 23:39, Xing Li a écrit :
...
A key point is that 4rd doesn't
Hi Guanghui,
I agree that both MAP and 4rd-u are similar technology and solving the same
problem. From technical perspective, can you elaborate this a lithe bit?
Thanks,
Yiu
From: Guanghui Yu yu.guang...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 20:26:40 +0800
To: Softwires WG softwires@ietf.org
Hi Stig,
DS-Lite was designed to deliver v4 unicast packets over v6-only network to
v4 host. However when we started thinking about how to deliver multicast
packets in the same network setup, we will have to tunnel all multicast
packets over tunnels. This is very inefficient to use of AFTR. This
One more note. When we developed this draft, we focused on access network
delivery. There is a mesh-multicast draft which also solve the same
problem (i.e. Tunneling v4 mcast through v6-only network) in the core
network.
On 3/22/12 10:29 PM, Lee, Yiu yiu_...@cable.comcast.com wrote:
Hi Stig,
Hi Yiu
4rd-u changes the IPv6 header architecture (redefine
fragmentation header extension) and IPv6 address architecture (different
meaning of u-bit when g-bit=1). These are the fundamental changes. If 4rd-u
becomes the standard, then there will be new defined “IPv6” packets on
the Internet,
Hi Guanghui,
I have to admit that I am not IPv6 protocol expert. I guess Remi took the
fragmentation header and overload it for his design. Say he defines a new
extension called transition extension, I would guess it would no longer
overload the fragmentation extension. I don't know enough the
Hi all
To define the transtion extension has the same problem, it still
is a new packet for existing devices.
4rd-U cannot replace MAP-T, since it cannot support single
translation. 4rd-U cannot replace MAP-E, since it cannot support IPv4
option. Therefore, it is no way for 4rd-U to
14 matches
Mail list logo
