Hi, Satoru,
I believe OSPF never abandon its own essence in order to be a super suite and
do something very strange to cover the use case which can be easily and clearly
done by RIP.
What's more, MAP is not OSPF, and LW4over6 is not RIP. MAP and LW4over6 have
their own use case when they are
i like the philosophy of multi-protocol socket. however, i moderately
doubt the multi-protocol socket v2.0 is a perfect plan for every cases.
in a quite good hotel, we see typically one 'multi-protocol socket' while
a lot of local-standard sockets. i never think it will make me happy if i
On 2012/06/27, at 15:38, Peng Wu wrote:
Oh, you don't argue that OSPF covers an use case which is also covered by
RIP. So then why are you arguing that an use case of MAP is eventually same
with the LW46 use case?
I'm clearly saying they have different use cases, but that's not the
point.
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Satoru Matsushima
satoru.matsush...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2012/06/27, at 15:38, Peng Wu wrote:
Oh, you don't argue that OSPF covers an use case which is also covered by
RIP. So then why are you arguing that an use case of MAP is eventually same
with the LW46
Qiong,
On 2012/06/27, at 16:52, Qiong wrote:
Yes. And in ietf-map section1, it declares:
The residual IPv4 over IPv6 mechanisms must be capable of algorithmically map
between an IPv4 prefix, IPv4 address or a shared IPv4 address and an IPv6
address
It is not consistent with EA-bit=0
On 2012/06/27, at 16:43, Peng Wu wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Satoru Matsushima
satoru.matsush...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2012/06/27, at 15:38, Peng Wu wrote:
Oh, you don't argue that OSPF covers an use case which is also covered by
RIP. So then why are you arguing that an use
Ian,
On 27 June 2012 10:39, ian.far...@telekom.de wrote:
**
Hi Woj,
Comments in line.
Cheers,
Ian
--
*From:* Wojciech Dec [mailto:wdec.i...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Dienstag, 26. Juni 2012 09:55
*To:* Farrer, Ian
*Cc:* satoru.matsush...@gmail.com;
We admit the algorithmic mapping is technically and theoretically beautiful,
multiple mapping methods and forwarding modes have been designed.
The essence of this mapping is that the format of IPv6 packet depends on IPv4
address and port information, with an algorithmic pre-determined
Hi Peng,
I think it is just example.
In case of this example, I think the standard of OSPF can't allow to use it for
only inter-area routing. This standard can also allow to use it within only
area 0. I think sometimes multiple solutions could be applied to solve the same
problem. In case of
On 2012/06/27, at 18:20, Qi Sun wrote:
Hi Satoru,
Please see inline.
BTW, my name is Qi :)
Agh! I'm so sorry!
[Qi] What we are discussing is on the essence of MAP where 1:1 mode is
intended to import binding table on BR , and on whether the ietf-map-00 is
qualified as a WG
Hi Satoru,
Inline, please ;)
Qi Sun
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Satoru Matsushima
satoru.matsush...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2012/06/27, at 18:20, Qi Sun wrote:
Hi Satoru,
Please see inline.
BTW, my name is Qi :)
Agh! I'm so sorry!
[Qi] What we are discussing is on the
Qi,
On 2012/06/27, at 19:01, Qi Sun wrote:
[Qi] DHCPv4 over IPv6 is a provisioning method. And it's about the public
IPv4 address allocation, NOT about IPv4 address and IPv6 address mapping. So
there is no state. Please read the draft of DHCPv4 over IPv6 for
clarification.
LW4over6
hi Woj,
thanks a lot for the clarification.
2012/6/27 Wojciech Dec wdec.i...@gmail.com
Hi Maoke,
inline...
On 27 June 2012 05:28, Maoke fib...@gmail.com wrote:
hi dear authors,
as the map-00 draft contains the normative 1:1 mode statement that is new
in comparison to the previous
An old cartoon I once saw, making fun of ISDN IIRC, showed a single
socket on the outside of the wall, connected to a rat's-nest of
connections on the inside. This seems apt for the present enterprise.
Tom Taylor
On 26/06/2012 9:48 PM, Maoke wrote:
dear Satoru,
2012/6/26 Satoru Matsushima
On 27.06.2012 14:21, Tom Taylor wrote:
An old cartoon I once saw, making fun of ISDN IIRC, showed a single
socket on the outside of the wall, connected to a rat's-nest of
connections on the inside. This seems apt for the present enterprise.
Regarding cartoons, I believe this one is relevant as
http://xkcd.com/449/ - Just for a test
From: softwires-boun...@ietf.org [softwires-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf of
Tomek Mrugalski [tomasz.mrugal...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 22:36
To: softwires@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Softwires] [Softwire]
This is a moot argument, as we have seen many protocols (take MPLS for
example) that were proposed to do just X, evolved to do X, Y, Z and
more.
Who would have thought that BGP would be advertising MAC addresses when
BGP was first introduced?
Let's focus on the operational problems solved (or
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 6:36 PM, Jacni Qin ja...@jacni.com wrote:
Re-,
On 6/26/2012 Tuesday 2:50 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 1:09 AM, Jacni Qinja...@jacni.com wrote:
Hi Behcet, all,
On Friday, June 22, 2012 2:23:34 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
Folks,
We have
Hi Lee,
Thanks for your reply. It clarifies some of my queries now. Hope
to see the revison tries to address these points.
Regards..
-Shailesh
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Lee, Yiu yiu_...@cable.comcast.com wrote:
Hi Shailesh,
Thanks very much of reviewing the draft. Please read
Hello Maoke,
inline...
On 27 June 2012 12:55, Maoke fib...@gmail.com wrote:
hi Woj,
thanks a lot for the clarification.
2012/6/27 Wojciech Dec wdec.i...@gmail.com
Hi Maoke,
inline...
On 27 June 2012 05:28, Maoke fib...@gmail.com wrote:
hi dear authors,
as the map-00 draft
FWIW, here is my take on this.
On 6/27/2012 8:30 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
[...]
That's a big IF. Not everybody has to do it the same way.
The solution in draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-02
builds itself something without considering what DS-Lite is doing.
As I told you before, DS-Lite
+1
The name and references to ds-lite terminology in the draft are misleading
and should be revised.
On 27 June 2012 22:08, Stig Venaas s...@venaas.com wrote:
FWIW, here is my take on this.
On 6/27/2012 8:30 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
[...]
That's a big IF. Not everybody has to do it
For your comments.
Tina
Begin forwarded message:
From: internet-dra...@ietf.orgmailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org
Date: June 27, 2012 2:05:41 PM PDT
To: tina.tsou.zout...@huawei.commailto:tina.tsou.zout...@huawei.com
Cc: brandon.lij...@huawei.commailto:brandon.lij...@huawei.com,
hi Woj,
thanks but it looks you didn't answer my questions somewhere maybe because
my questions were not clearly expressed. ;-) inline..
2012/6/27 Wojciech Dec wdec.i...@gmail.com
Hello Maoke,
inline...
On 27 June 2012 12:55, Maoke fib...@gmail.com wrote:
hi Woj,
thanks a lot for the
Hi,
Then I will ask: Have the Y, Z already been hard worked by some other guys for
a long time?
I don't think what you said is the right direction. What I can see from the
mailing list is that the MAP-00 authors were trying to avoid some critical
questions.
Yes the technical details can be
On 6/27/2012 Wednesday 11:30 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 6:36 PM, Jacni Qin ja...@jacni.com wrote:
Re-,
On 6/26/2012 Tuesday 2:50 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 1:09 AM, Jacni Qinja...@jacni.com wrote:
Hi Behcet, all,
On Friday, June 22, 2012
Hi Maoke-san,
On 2012/06/27, at 20:12, Maoke wrote:
Described text for '1:1 mode' in current version would make some people
confused. We need to make clear for that.
i fully agree with you as zero-lengthed EA-bits is a naturally possible case
of MAP. however, to my understanding, even
27 matches
Mail list logo
