Hi Ralph, Fully agree. From operator aspect, we do not care about whether it is a stateful or a totally stateless one. We are just interested in a good solution which is easy to use, operate and cost less. So any solution, either "stateless" or "less stateful" , will be welcome if they can meet our practical requirements.
Besides, I still think that our current discussion on stateless solutions is too technical. I think we should also discuss more about operational issues for existing stateless solutions, e.g. how to make proper plan on the range of v6domain, how to cope with different situations for addressing and routing, and how to simply the configuration, etc. Hopefully we will get a clear picture after discussing in our Interim meeting. Best wishes On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 12:03 AM, Ralph Droms <rdroms.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think it would be useful to reframe the discussion away from > "stateless/stateful" and more towards the issues that operators are > interested in: capital investment and ongoing operational expense. > "stateless/stateful" is related to those expense issues but there is not, > for any given operator, necessarily a direct relation between operator cost > and statefulness. > > It seems there are operators who feel their needs would be better served by > a "less stateful" mechanism. Whether that mechanism is completely > "stateless" or "less stateful" is less important than what I hear as a need > for "has state that is cheaper to deploy and run." There may be other > operational requirements for better service that would be met by "less > stateful." > > - Ralph > > On Sep 8, 2011, at 8:24 AM 9/8/11, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > > > Hi Fred, > > Please note the quotes on stateless in Alain's mail. > > > > Some techniques are not as stateless as is claimed. > > > > Please see the chair's slides in IETF 81. > > > > Regards, > > > > Behcet > > > > > > > >> > >> On Sep 7, 2011, at 1:58 PM, Alain Durand wrote: > >> > >>> Fred: > >>> > >>> The way I phrased the call for the interim meeting on the mailling list > >> might have created some unwanted confusion. > >>> > >>> Yong and I are going to publish the agenda for the interim meeting very > >> soon. > >>> There will be ample time to discuss the various propositions on the > table > >> in the 'stateless' arena (that I can define loosely as no centralized > >> CGN) > >>> Some more stateless than others, some more stateful than others, some > based > >> on tunnels and some based on translation. > >>> Giving ample time to discuss all those solution is the very reason of > the > >> interim meeting. > >>> > >>> Is that clearer? > >> > >> Hopefully. There is a pretty strong concern here that the meeting is > being > >> arranged to encourage certain outcomes. I'd really hope for a level > playing > >> field, whatever the outcome may turn out to be. > >> > >>> - Alain. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sep 7, 2011, at 3:10 PM, Fred Baker wrote: > >>> > >>>> Alain: > >>>> > >>>> I have a question. In your recent note to softwire, you seem to be > >> changing the charter that you and Jari stated in v6ops at IETF-81. At > IETF-81, > >> you stated that there was no need for a translation-related working > group > >> because translation (specifically the dIVI proposal, but more generally > >> translation) would be part of the ongoing softwire charter. In your more > recent > >> statements, you appear to be saying that the topic would be discussed in > a > >> "vs" setting and buried "because the IETF has decided to not work > >> on translation". I'll remind you that the IETF has not only chosen to > >> work on translation, but to standardize it along with tunneling > technologies. > >>>> > >>>> I call on you to not only give lip service to discussion, but to allow > >> and support open discussion of stateless a+p tunneling (as apposed to > ds-lite, > >> which is stateful) and translation, as you said you would. > >>>> > >>>> Fred > >>>> > >>>>> Alain's "translation" statement is ~2hrs 57 min into > >> the recording at: > >>>>> http://www.ietf.org/audio/ietf81/ietf81-205abc-20110728-1256-pm.mp3 > >>>>> > >>>>> Transcript: > >>>>> > >>>>> Alain: This is done in Softwire. We are planning to organize > >>>>> an interim meeting in September, in some part of the world, > >>>>> to actually go through all the technical solutions that have > >>>>> been put forward and analyze them and do what we did at the > >>>>> beginning of Softwires. Pretty intensive interim meeting, > >>>>> locked in a room, and figure out what we need. > >>>>> > >>>>> Fred: So, Alain, we are finally going to have the discussion. > >>>>> > >>>>> Alain: We are actually going to make technical progress on > >>>>> this - more than just discussing. > >>>>> > >>>>> Jari suggested doing everything in one group (implying a new WG). > >>>>> > >>>>> Alain: there are no more groups. We will just do it now. > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Softwires mailing list > >> Softwires@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > Softwires mailing list > > Softwires@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
