2012/2/23, [email protected] <[email protected]>: > Dear Dapeng, > > Are you considering the endpoint (host or CPE) as part of the service > provider's network? > > If not, please read the definition again with the answer in mind.
Hi Med, Yes, I am considering CPE. There are two reasons: 1. The definition of "stateless" should not be bind to the provider's network. The document should define "stateless" for the Internet not only for the operator. 2. Even for CPE itself, in many cases, it should be considered as provider's network since operator need to control/configure the CPE remotely in that case. regards, Dapeng Liu > Cheers, > Med > >> -----Message d'origine----- >> De : liu dapeng [mailto:[email protected]] >> Envoyé : jeudi 23 février 2012 12:04 >> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP >> Cc : Softwire Chairs; [email protected] >> Objet : Re: [Softwires] Closing >> draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation >> >> Hi Med, >> >> I think it is still not clear about the definition of "stateless", in >> current draft, it says: >> >> stateless denotes a solution which does not require any per-user state >> (see Section >> 2.3 of [RFC1958]) to be maintained by any IP address sharing >> function in the Service Provider's network. >> >> But all the candidate solutions: MAP-T/MAP-E/4rd-U all need to maitain >> state in CPE. It is obviously contradictory with this definition. We >> need more discussion regarding the definition of "stateless". >> >> regards, >> Dapeng Liu >> >> 2012/2/20, [email protected] >> <[email protected]>: >> > Dear chairs, WG members, >> > >> > The answers received so far are in favour of initiating a >> WG LC on this >> > document. >> > >> > As an editor of the document, I would like to progress this >> document for the >> > next IETF meeting. Chairs, could you please issue the WG LC? Thanks. >> > >> > Cheers, >> > Med >> > >> >> -----Message d'origine----- >> >> De : [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >> >> Envoyé : samedi 11 février 2012 09:30 >> >> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP >> >> Cc : [email protected] >> >> Objet : Re: [Softwires] Closing >> >> draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation >> >> >> >> In your previous mail you wrote: >> >> >> >> > (1) Either issue a WG LC, or >> >> >> >> +1 >> >> >> >> [email protected] >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Softwires mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >> > >> >> >> -- >> >> ------ >> Best Regards, >> Dapeng Liu >> -- ------ Best Regards, Dapeng Liu _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
