Hi Guanghui, I have to admit that I am not IPv6 protocol expert. I guess Remi took the fragmentation header and overload it for his design. Say he defines a new extension called "transition" extension, I would guess it would no longer overload the fragmentation extension. I don't know enough the current implementation of the FIB and how <u,g> in 4rd-u design would impact the implementation. I have homework to do.
Apart from that, I found MAP and 4rd-u are similar technologies trying to solve the same problem. So far I follow all the discussions in the mailing list about this topics. Technically speaking, they have pros and cons. I fail to see one is absolutely superior than the other. Both designs make trade-offs. When we come to WG adoption, I am completely fine if the WG decides one over the other. That said, the current discussion reminds me about OSPF vs IS-IS. They are so similar but yet have subtle differences. Today, both protocols are running in production. Best case scenario is the authors can balance the trade-offs and merge two drafts. If not WG could potentially publish both techs (e.g. one standard track and one informational/experimental) and let the market force to decide. B.R., Yiu P.S. When I say MAP, I mean all 3 drafts (T/M/A+P). I see them one complete series. From: Guanghui Yu <[email protected]> Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 11:04:54 +0800 To: "Yiu L. LEE" <[email protected]> Cc: Softwires WG <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Softwires] Path to move forward with 4rdŠ Hi Yiu 4rd-u changes the IPv6 header architecture (redefine fragmentation header extension) and IPv6 address architecture (different meaning of u-bit when g-bit=1). These are the fundamental changes. If 4rd-u becomes the standard, then there will be new defined "IPv6" packets on the Internet, which are not compatible with existing IPv6 packets and no existing devices can understand those packets. Yu Guanghui <ygh at dlut.edu.cn <http://dlut.edu.cn> > Network and Information Center Dalian University of Technology, China On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Lee, Yiu <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Guanghui, > > I agree that both MAP and 4rd-u are similar technology and solving the same > problem. From technical perspective, can you elaborate this a lithe bit? > > Thanks, > Yiu > > From: Guanghui Yu <[email protected]> > Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 20:26:40 +0800 > To: Softwires WG <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Softwires] Path to move forward with 4rd... > > I read 4rd-u draft and found it is flawed.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
