On 4/10/12 7:35 AM, GangChen wrote:
OTOH, I'm still not fully convinced MAP-E and -T should be treated as
one solution. I like MAP-E or -T to be deployed as a separate
solution. However, coexistence means operators should have double
packages inspection toolkits, double operational rules delivery and
double provisioning costs. In some cases, translation solution is
exclusive to encapsulation (Please see more in
draft-dec-stateless-4v6). Even you can implement in the same box,
that's very inconvenient for operation and subscriber. According
RFC6180, it is fundamental two different solution.
Hi,
I see MAP-E/T combo as one solution, where you "turn the knob" when
implementing it - you choose encap *or* translation mode. Whichever mode
you choose, there is no sign of the other anymore.
Cheers, Jan
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
