Yiu, > 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.
Type 3 Routing Header? we've tried this type of tunneling before. ;-) > 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. the authors did already do that. the dIVI and 4rd authors met 16th of November at the last IETF. we collectively went through the complete feature list. the result is what you find in the MAP document series. Remi, who was also at that meeting, later came up with a different solution and new features and decided to create a competing proposal. MAP is largely original 4rd and dIVI, considering its roots. there has been a continuing exchange of ideas and improvement of the proposals. Remi's latest 4rd-U proposal largely represents all the functions that there was no support for in the MAP design team. I do not think attempting yet another merger will be a good use of our time. > P.S. When I say MAP, I mean all 3 drafts (T/M/A+P). I see them one complete > series. yes, that makes sense. OK, what if we try this: MAP is a unified solution consisting of two transport modes (T/E), a provisioning (DHCP) and a deployment document. then we can pick between MAP and 4rd-U. the winner gets published on standards track. the looser gets documented as informational for the purpose of historical reference. cheers, Ole _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
