Hi all
To define the "transtion" extension has the same problem, it still
is a "new" packet for existing devices.
4rd-U cannot replace MAP-T, since it cannot support single
translation. 4rd-U cannot replace MAP-E, since it cannot support IPv4
option. Therefore, it is no way for 4rd-U to replace MAP series. BTW, we
need both encapsulation and translation, i.e. MAP-E and MAP-T.
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Lee, Yiu <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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>
> 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.
>>
>
>
--
Yu Guanghui <ygh at dlut.edu.cn>
Network and Information Center
Dalian University of Technology, China
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
