2012/3/7 Tina TSOU <[email protected]> > > > Sent from my iPad > > On Mar 6, 2012, at 2:24 AM, "GangChen" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hello Tina, > > > > Could you help to clarify the sentence: > > > > *1 MAP and divi-pd provide better security than 4rd-U, because they > > provide more variation in port set definition. > > > > I guess they should have similar features on security > Agreed. No much difference between MAP, divi-pd, and 4rd-U with regard to > security. So I propose to remove this sentence. >
well, *better security* might be an inaccurate expresssion. i suppose MAP provides better flexibility than 4rd-U. personally, i understand the reason of 4rd-U requiring fixed offset (4bits) is to support the longest-match of port for CE-finding in the mesh mode (i.e., the MAX PSID). it is a tradeoff. without the fixed offset, longest-match fails for the PSID matching and there must be a way of distributing CE's PSID to other CEs. however, it does also confuses me that the newest 4rd-U draft doesn't mention the MAX PSID feature (or maybe i missed something). > > > > Gang > > > > 2012/3/2, Tina TSOU <[email protected]>: > >> Dear all, > >> You may be interested to comment on > >> > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tsou-softwire-port-set-algorithms-analysis/ > >> > >> Abstract: > >> This memo analyses some port set definition algorithms which > >> encode port set information into IPv6 address so as to support > >> stateless IPv4 to IPv6 transition technologies, e.g. 4rd-U and MAP. > >> > >> > >> Tetsuya, Simon and Tina > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Softwires mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > >> > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
