> Firstly, this draft will mis-lead other operators thinking that this > is a pure stateless solution from the title and the document (maybe > terminology such as "Maping" is better). IETF WG should not hurry up > without the correct description on what the document is. For my > understanding, both of above two solutions are stateful solution. Even > in the first case of BR' side there are still stateful information for > control plane. > > Secondly, since this is also stateful solution principally. Then why > IETF need to invent a second wheel about the same scenario, should > IETF obsolete previous one such as DS-Lite, then start to work on > this?
- there is new or _additional_ state introduced in the network - existing state is kept close to the edge (RFC1958) I don't see how this is going to mislead or confuse anyone. what point are you trying to make? that the total amount of state in a DS-lite versus stateless solution is about the same? that's correct as far as it goes. but _where_ the state is does matter. no-one would argue against putting state in the end host or application, while adding state in the network is problematic for all the reasons outlined in the draft. cheers, Ole _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
