From: Maoke <[email protected]> Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2012 11:23:46 +0000 To: Cisco Employee <[email protected]> Cc: "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Softwires] Path to move forward with 4rdŠ
hi Reinaldo, well, you pointed me as the first receiver. AFAIK, everyone participating Beijing interim has viewed the prototype (if you rejected to call that as a product) of MAP-T which is running over a production network. it was surely not IVI, and some important test data has been presented in IETF meetings. [Reinaldo] I was not at the Interim meeting Can you point to the test data so we can put this issue to rest? others may add information in response to your request but i don't think they are obliged to do so here, in this thread, considering 4rd-u hasn't have no even prototype yet. [Reinaldo] humm....So, basically you are saying that since 4rd-U has no prototype, others are not obliged to show their goods either. I thought it would be the other way around, I.e., go for the finish line: Let's push for rough consensus and running code, put the issue to rest and get MAP adopted. regarding your second question, MHO, IVI that supported by RFC6052 address mapping has different address plan with the MAP domain (you may be also interested in reading draft-mdt-softwire-map-deployment and RFC6219). they have different use cases in deployment. there is no question about transition from IVI to MAP-T, to my understanding. i may agree if you mean the existing RFCs related to IVI are still not enough to provide an informational guideline for people who would like to deploy it. [Reinaldo] Certainly. thanks, maoke 2012/4/3 Reinaldo Penno <[email protected]> > Hello, > > I was not part of the design team and maybe my question was already answered > in some design team ML. > > Is there a document describing where MAP-T was tested, which products, > operators, test timespan, test plan, was it production network, etc? > > And btw, I'm not talking about IVI or the part of MAP-T that is compatible > with IVI. Sorry, but If I will back MAP-T I would like to see MAP-T data, not > a look alike. I guess this brings another question whether there is a plan to > write a document to for those that have deployed IVI and want to transition to > MAP-T. > > Thanks, > > Reinaldo
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
