Dear Yu,
I think the meaning of word 'stateless' should be clarified. To my knowledge,
both the
draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite-05 and draft-penno-softwire-sdnat-02
are
per-flow stateless, but per-subscriber stateful. They are not as stateless as
MAP or
4rd-U. I don't think it's appropriate to take these two stateful solutions into
account.
Best regards!
Yuchi Chen
From: Fuyu (Eleven)
Date: 2012-04-01 09:24
To: Sheng Jiang
CC: Softwires WG
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Have the WG drop other stateless solutions already?
Agree.
I think we shouldn't drop other stateless solutions as:
draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite-05
draft-penno-softwire-sdnat-02
They are all belong to stateless scope and with the same network architecture
of IPv4 traffic across IPv6 access network as MAP and 4rd-U.
Cheers
Yu
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Sheng Jiang
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 11:04 PM
To: Softwires WG
Subject: [Softwires] Have the WG drop other stateless solutions already?
Hi, Softwirers,
I get very confused when I walked out the Softwire meeting this morning. Why
did we only talk about making choice between 4rd-U and MAP? There are also
several other stateless solutions, too. As far as I recalled, the Softwire WG
have NOT decided to drop them at all. They should be discussed together and
equally.
If the Softwire WG is going to choose single one solution, it should be choose
among all these solutions. Until we have decided drop all other stateless
solutions, this is not a two-horse race, yet.
Best regards,
Sheng
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[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
