Le 2012-04-02 à 16:05, Ole Trøan a écrit : > Remi, > >>> (please don't respond to these, FYI only. I'm on Easter holiday.) >> >> Asking that a list of objections shouldn't be answered is to me very unusual! > > it was to remind you of the problems with 4rd-U.
> we have been many rounds on these exact arguments, and I don't see the point > of rehashing the discussion. Then, don't do it yourself. > we're going to continue to have different views on the new use of u/g, the > overloading of fragmentation, and that double translation can replace > tunneling. > I'd rather see arguments from non-authors. Then, arguments from others than MAP-team members and 4rd-U authors would be the most valuable. Sheng Jiang of Huawei writing "we are going to implement 4rd-u and do operational tests" is therefore a very important one (like it or not). > (this reminds me of cockfighting; somewhat entertaining for the spectators > (if that's your kind of thing), one is declared a winner, but both combatants > die... You may fear that MAP T+E would be about to die (your judgement) but, in particular in view of the quotation above, I think 4rd-U as in a good position to remain alive. Your recent comment suggesting that hub&spoke and per-customer stateful solutions might after all be sufficient seems to me a sheer lack of confidence in the solution you propose. (It looks like you become tired to work on the double-standard approach, knowing that arguments for it are too weak for success.) This doesn't justify, however, your trying to also kill the single standard solution, the most credible A+P approach we have on the table. RD > > cheers, > Ole _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
