+1. If the WG decided to standardize both MAP-T and MAT-E, there would be two standards. Operators still needed to make the choice between them.
On 4/10/12 9:07 AM, "Simon Perreault" <[email protected]> wrote: >On 2012-04-10 04:21, GangChen wrote: >>> I see MAP-E/T combo as one solution, where you "turn the knob" when >>> implementing it - you choose encap *or* translation mode. >> >> You could combo 100 solultions as you want. However, that is still >> seems to me separated solutions. > >+1 > > From a deployment point of view, it makes no sense to treat them as >one. You would need to evaluate T and E separately for *everything*: >routers, provisioning, customer equipment, accounting, etc. So it makes >no sense to treat T and E as a single protocol. > >Simon >-- >DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca >NAT64/DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca >STUN/TURN server --> http://numb.viagenie.ca >_______________________________________________ >Softwires mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
