Hi all
This mail raises a very important issue. MAP-T and MAP-E are not
competing technologies. They have different user scenarios. I read 4rd-u
draft and found it is flawed. I will not support the adoption of 4rd-u,
since there is no running code and there is no experimental evaluation. In
summary, 4rd-U is not in the same level of MAP series and it should not be
considered for adoption in coming Paris IETF meeting.
PS: I'am sorry if this mail sends more than one time, the mail system of
our university may have problems with this mail list today.
Yu Guanghui <ygh at dlut.edu.cn>
Network and Information Center
Dalian University of Technology, China
Tel: +86 411 84708117
在 2012-3-21，下午9:39， Xing Li 写道：
Hi, Alain, Yong and Ralph,
The newly posted agenda does not match the consensus as you mentioned on 6
Oct 2011, that “multiple address and port mapping technologies could and
should converge” and you formally announced “the creation of the MAP
(Mapping of Addresses and Ports) design team”, a design team which “is
tasked to formulate a unified format to be used either in an encapsulation
or double translation mode” (
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires/current/msg03024.html). For
the past few months, the design team has produced a series of MAP
documents, including MAP, MAP-E, MAP-T, MAP-dhcp, etc. The mailing-list has
also showed positive feedback on the adoption of the MAP series as the
standard track of working group documents. Moreover, the dIVI (an earlier
version of MAP-T) has been running successfuly at CERNET2 for two years now.
4rd-U was submitted later, and the goal is to replace the MAP Series. There
have been discussions in the mailing list, but the discussions are mainly
questions concerning the 4rd-U proposal. Actually, 4rd-U is still in the
early design stage. Due to its proposed modification of the IPv6
architecture (V-Oct and the fragmentation header), the discussion should be
extended at least to 6man WG before the Softwire WG makes any decision of
adoption. Furthermore, experimental data should be presented to the WG to
show that these modifications are not harmful. In addition, the
fragmentation header modifications actually only deal with a very corner
case of double translation (10e-5% of the packets, not production traffic).
Therefore, I don’t think we have any reason to change the procedure and in
the coming meeting, we should discuss whether consensus can be reached for
the adoption of the MAP series. We should discuss whether 4rd-U can be
adopted in a later meeting when it gets proved by 6man and its
modifications are proved to be not harmful by experimental data.
Regards,
xing
于 2012/3/20 7:38, Alain Durand 写道:
Dear wg,
After a number of discussions with my co-chair, our AD and various
authors, here is how we would like to move forward wrt 4rd.
1) There is an observation that all the solutions on the table E, T &
U actually solve the stateless problem we started with.
There are differences, but it is unclear if those differences are
really significant. E and T are the original Encapsulation and
Translation
proposals, U is an hybrid unifying solution.
2) We have already agreed back in Beijing that we would publish all
necessary documents. The issue here is the 'label' or 'status' those
documents have at IETF. In particular, do we want to publish them
as Experimental, Informational or Standard Track.
We are at the point now where we need to make progress. In Paris, we
would like to ask for presentations from the proponents of each
candidate solution (E, T & U).
Each presentation should cover an overview of the proposed solution,
explain how it compares to the others and make a case as why it should
be the one on the Standard Track. We will allocate 20 minutes for each
presentation.
Then, we, chairs, would like to ask a series of questions to the
working group. In order to make this process transparent, here is the
list of questions we want to ask
and their sequence.
Q1: Without pre-supposing which one will be selected, do you agree to
publish 1 of the 3 proposals on the Standard Track and publish the
other(s) as Informational if still asked to?
If the answer is NO, then the process stops and we will publish
everything as Experimental and come back in 12-24 months to see what
gets adopted by the market.
If the answer is YES, we move to the next question.
Q2: Do you believe that the WG should publish U as the one Standards
Track document?
If the answer is YES, the process stop, we put U on the Standard Track
and publish E & T as Informational.
If the answer is NO, we are left with E & T (U then might be abandoned
or published as Historical/Informational)
Q3: Which of E and T do you want to see moving on the standard track
(you can only express support for one)?
If there is a clear outcome from this question, we would publish that
proposal on the Standard Track and the other one as Informational.
If there is no clear consensus on this question, we will publish both
E & T as Experimental.
In the meantime, we would like to encourage discussion on the mailing
list to foster our common understanding of the various technologies
and how they relate to each other.
Alain & Yong, wg co-chairs.
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing
[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
