I didn't mean to send this to the ML. I still don't know why it did. I apologize if it offends anybody. Anyway, my position reminds the same. I would like to work with others to improve technology, not arguing for the sake of arguing.
Yiu On 4/10/12 8:02 PM, "Lee, Yiu" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi Remi, > >I think Woj has answered the question that MAP-E will require explicit >provision. He may not answer very clearly YES or NO, but saying it is >durable. IMNO, explicit or implicit is very critical. Implicit is >definitely better but it isn't a real concern if we have to provision a >parameter. IMHo, we should stop here and don't give other people we are >dog-fighting. I think slowly we will build up more support by showing >others we are willing to work with others. > >Thanks, >Yiu > >P.S. I will real Maoke's draft about 4rd-u. > > >On 4/10/12 12:02 PM, "Rémi Després" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>Hi, Tomek, >> >>AFAIK, deciding whether hub-and-spoke selection is implicit by mapping >>rules or explicit with a parameter is a more general matter than an >>option or sub-optiuon format. >> >>I know you can adapt to any choice made by the team in this respect. >> >>What remains is that we still don't know whether it is possible to make >>it implicitly or not. >> >>Th fact that DHCPv6 provisioning hasn't been tested, if confirmed, isn't >>a big deal at all IMHO, but the question was worth asking. >> >>What is more significant is that nobody seems to be able to say, today, >>whether it can be implicit or not, and how it will work. >> >>Regards, >>RD >> >> >> >>Le 2012-04-10 à 13:52, Tomek Mrugalski a écrit : >> >>> On 10.04.2012 11:51, Wojciech Dec wrote: >>>> you're apparently confusing matters. There is no need to have a DHCPv6 >>>> option, or a million node deployment to test MAP implementations. >>>> DS-lite is a good example, with implementations and standards track >>>> before the DHCPv6 option. >>> >>>> On 10 April 2012 11:37, Rémi Després <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> The difficulty is that: >>>> - The MAP-DHCPv6 draft has no parameter to indicate whether the >>>> ISP-chosen topology is mesh or hub-and-spoke. >>> Guys, >>> Please be reasonable. DHCP provisioning is trivial compared to other >>> MAP/4rd-U aspects. It is not relevant for core aspects of the >>>technology >>> comparisons. My advice to people who spend their time on "my solution >>>is >>> better than yours" discussions: Forget about DHCP for now and focus on >>> more important aspects. >>> >>> My personal opinion is that DHCP does not matter at this stage. Sure, >>>it >>> will be needed eventually, but you can *now* test implementations that >>> are statically configured. >>> >>> Now, to the actual question about hub&spoke. We assumed that CE can >>> detect on its own if it is running in hub&spoke or mesh topology by >>> analyzing received rules. See last paragraph of section 4.2 of >>> mdt-softwire-map-dhcp-option that explain this simple algorithm (if it >>> can be called an algorithm at all - it is a simple "if" statement). >>> >>> Honestly speaking as a co-author of MAP DHCP option draft, I didn't >>>want >>> to spend too much time on this *yet*. That is also one of the reasons >>> why I didn't look at 4rd-U DHCP option yet. It changes too greatly >>> between revisions. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Tomek >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Softwires mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >> >>_______________________________________________ >>Softwires mailing list >>[email protected] >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >_______________________________________________ >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
