Without any objection to MAP, we just start to coding 4rd-u and help to improve it.
Multiple transition mechanisms would co-exist in the world. Neither MAP nor 4rd-U can replace 6rd and DS-Lite. There is no one-suit-all solution. From: Maoke [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 5:39 PM To: Sheng Jiang Cc: Lee, Yiu; Liubing (Leo); Simon Perreault; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Softwires] Path to move forward with 4rdŠ 4rd-U as transparent as MAP-E 2012/4/9 Sheng Jiang <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Please allow me to clarify myself: I support both MAP and 4rd-u. MAP has been a good effort with many experts together in IPv4/IPv6 transition area and has been proved by running code. It also need to improve itself before being published as a RFC later. This process will take several months. Personally, I think 4rd-u is a little bit behind MAP in maturity aspect for now. But, it is only matter of time. The authors have agreed to remove the architectural conflict, if there was any. We have offered to help on the improvement by implementation. Giving time, both solution can be mature enough for operations. IETF does not have to choose one by now. And, these two solutions are not necessary to be a same pace. what if, giving time, people can be mature enough to identify 4rd-U is really a flawed donkorse? ;-) if the 4rd-u designers are so confident, why not do the real coding work first and then propose it as a replacement of MAP suite? i don't see any unfairness here. - maoke
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
