+1
I've read the endless discussion, and found that is seems the MAP also has not
fully convinced the ISP operation guys.
Since there's explicit controversy, why not just publish them both as
experimental. why we must chose one as a standard track? Being a standard
track can eliminate
Le 2012-04-03 à 03:53, Satoru Matsushima a écrit :
FYI, choosing MAP doesn't mean that committing to a 'single'. But choosing
4rd-u means that committing to a 'single'.
There're just transport variants, which are encapsulation, translation and
new one we've never seen before. Proponents
If you would have a detailed scenario where ANY transparency difference could
be noticeable e2e between a MAP-E tunnel and a 4rd-U tunnel, this sentence
would be fair.
However, you haven't shown such a scenario, and AFAIK you can't have one
because it doesn't exist.
The above assertion,
Le 2012-04-03 à 11:40, Ole Trøan a écrit :
If you would have a detailed scenario where ANY transparency difference
could be noticeable e2e between a MAP-E tunnel and a 4rd-U tunnel, this
sentence would be fair.
However, you haven't shown such a scenario, and AFAIK you can't have one
Hi Remi,
Do we need them to be sure in spite of we already have existing mature
transport variants?
MAP-E+T isn't as mature as repeatedly claimed.
MAP-T may be more imprecise than MAP-E in this respect, but both have known
bugs to be fixed (at least packet IDs of shared-addres CEs of
