Yong, Suresh, Ralph, For mesh stateless v4/v6, we have so far a choice between only two solutions, MAP as is and 4rd. On can hope that the consensus that couldn't be reached in Paris will be achievable in Vancouver, but this isn't sure, each "camp" keeping its own expectation.
Looking at recent history, we can remember that, not long ago, the chair's approach was to have 3 specifications completed (MAP-T, MAP-E, and MAP-H, as Alain called it with H for Hybrid), and then to choose only one for standardization. After that, promoters of either -T and -E decided to merge -T and -E in a non-separable specification, as reflected in draft-ietf-softwire-map-00. Thus, the choice has become between a "two-variants" specification (MAP) and a "single-variant" specification (4rd). In this context, a larger choice might well be the best chance for a WG consensus. It would include a MAP specification in which the forwarding mode of 4rd would be added as 3rd, say a "MAP-bis" . With this MAP-bis: - vendors have to support 3 forwarding modes, which isn't ideal, but most of the design, in particular in what concerns mapping rules, remains common (Alain once said, possibly with optimism, the three were 99% identical!) - operators have a free choice between T, E, or H, based on their operational preferences. - we have (at last) a stabilized design with no one badly frustrated. If this approach makes sense for the WG, I can do the work of editing a MAP-bis proposal (taking the current MAP specification, adding a section that describes the hybrid forwarding mode, and adding a third variant in the address-format section). My personal preference remains for 4rd as single standard, but a choice between MAP-as-is, MAP-bis, and 4rd, is IMHO a sounder choice for the WG than just between MAP-as-is and 4rd. Hoping that this will be found constructive, Best regards, RD _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
