Dear all,
I really don't understand this issue.
It is even misplaced to have this comment at this stage, since this is a
document which has been adopted by the WG and the solution it specifies is the
same as the one reviewed by the WG prior to its adoption (i.e., since April
2011).
Anyway,
Med,
2) and 3) both require configuration and as has been amply discussed
technically there is no issue with per subscriber rules in 2) or
optimization applying to 3). As such, justifying three different solutions
out of which two can technically have the same amount of configuration
state and
On 26 July 2012 16:59, Lee, Yiu yiu_...@cable.comcast.com wrote:
Ole,
IMHO the WG will need to decide whether EA=0 should be covered at all. If
not, then the draft could explicitly mention EA must be 0 and must
contain v4 information in the CE address. If the WG decided this needed to
be
Woj,
I am confused. You said given that EA=0 is already covered (eg embedding of
full IPv4 address, no address sharing, if not the other case). If I read
the spec right, this is my understanding: If I want to embed full v4 address
in the CE v6 address, the v4 address will be embedded in the EA.
Woj,
The argument you are raising applies also for (1) and (3): one can argue this
justifies editing an RFC6333-bis to cover the per-subscriber state case ;-)
As I mentioned in my first message, MAP can be extended to cover the
per-subscriber case at the cost of adding confusion by abandoning
Med,
the point is that the DS-Lite (CGN AFTR) solution is not necessary to be
deployed for the multicast solution described here to work.
As to how this ended up being charterd in Softwire I don't know and IMO it
doesn't make much sense.
Regards,
Woj.
On 27 July 2012 13:48,
Ole's and Satoru's eaerlier replies on this thread described the how, and
even Maoke's earlier post on this thread acknowledged EA=0 with full IPv4
to be a naturally established case of the MAP. EA=0 simply means that
there isn't IPv4 (or PSID) info in the IPv6 prefix.
In terms of your
Re-,
Yes, the CGN is not required. This design choice is motivated in the draft
(read the Introduction text).
What is the issue then?
If you are saying this is a generic solution and it does not apply only to
ds-lite, this point is taken (see the note below).
Cheers,
Med
Woj,
According to your description, it is clear that the way to deal with EA=0
is quite different with EA0. Mixing them together will not only make MAP
losing the initial no state in the ISP network paradigm spirit, but also
make MAP a lot more complex and confusing.
Actually, the use case for
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:28 PM, Qiong bingxu...@gmail.com wrote:
Woj,
According to your description, it is clear that the way to deal with EA=0 is
quite different with EA0. Mixing them together will not only make MAP
losing the initial no state in the ISP network paradigm spirit, but also
On 7/27/12 2:39 PM, Lee, Yiu wrote:
The EA bits encode the CE specific IPv4
address and port information. The EA bits can contain a full or part
of an IPv4 prefix or address, and in the shared IPv4 address case
contains a Port-Set Identifier (PSID).
I prefer one solution vs. N
On 25 July 2012 16:13, Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net wrote:
Le 2012-07-25 à 15:59, Wojciech Dec (wdec) a écrit :
On 25/07/2012 15:47, Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net wrote:
take it to 6man.
6man has to be involved, sure, but Softwire should first be clear
On 24.07.2012 15:10, Rémi Després wrote:
Hi, Tomek,
Hi Remi. hi all,
Since you are the known DHCP expert in Softwire concerning stateless
Thank you for your kind words. I just know DHCPv6 a bit, but I
definitely don't consider myself an expert in stateless solutions.
solutions, could you
Le 2012-07-27 à 16:20, Wojciech Dec a écrit :
On 25 July 2012 16:13, Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net wrote:
Le 2012-07-25 à 15:59, Wojciech Dec (wdec) a écrit :
On 25/07/2012 15:47, Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net wrote:
take it to 6man.
6man has to be
Le 2012-07-27 à 16:55, Tomek Mrugalski a écrit :
On 24.07.2012 15:10, Rémi Després wrote:
Hi, Tomek,
Hi Remi. hi all,
Since you are the known DHCP expert in Softwire concerning stateless
Thank you for your kind words. I just know DHCPv6 a bit, but I
definitely don't consider myself an
Hi
On 7/27/2012 4:48 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
Dear all,
I really don't understand this issue.
It is even misplaced to have this comment at this stage, since this is a
document which has been adopted by the WG and the solution it specifies is the
same as the one reviewed by the
Hi Med,
My comments below. Please do not take them personal. No offense.
Please, please.
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 6:48 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
Dear all,
I really don't understand this issue.
It is even misplaced to have this comment at this stage, since this is a
document
17 matches
Mail list logo
