Hello Jan, 2012/4/10, Jan Zorz @ go6.si <[email protected]>: > 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.
You could combo 100 solultions as you want. However, that is still seems to me separated solutions. This recalls me 6204bits recommended 6rd and DS-Lite for IPv6 CPE. I prefer to understand that are two solutions, even you can combo them together? BTW, this combo thing is not only CE business, but also corresponding complexity on network sides. As I mentioned above it requires double efforts to operators. BRs Gang > Cheers, Jan > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
