Hello Guanghui, 2012/3/23, Guanghui Yu <[email protected]>: > 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.
I guess the concern of "single translation" has already been addressed in http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires/current/msg03724.html BRs Gang >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
