Hi Yiu, No, that's a misunderstanding. Current MAP specify the case for ea-len is 'zero'. It is 'per-subscriber mapping' in stateless manner, not to introduce 'per-flow NAT binding' or 'per-subscriber state on demand'.
cheers, --satoru On 2012/06/25, at 2:32, Lee, Yiu wrote: > Dear Satoru and MAP-DT > > I echo what Peng and Qiong said. When the WG agreed working on the > stateless solution, it was very clear stated that the solution would not > maintain states in the network. If the 1:1 mode changed this, this no > longer matched the requirements stated in the stateless motivation draft, > thus, it would disqualify MAP as a solution for the motivation draft. > > AFAIK, the MAP Design Team could propose a change, but such a dramatic > change by introducing states in the network would require WG approval. I > would like the chairs to clarify this. > > Thanks, > Yiu > > > On 6/24/12 12:21 PM, "Peng Wu" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Qiong, Satoru and all, >> >> I should thank Qiong for pointing this out. I gotta say I'm a bit shocked. >> If I understand the procedures of IETF correctly, a WG document should >> reflect the consensus of the WG. MAP is approved by the WG as a >> stateless solution. As a participator in Softwire, I didn't get the >> information anywhere that the MAP WG document would cover the >> so-called 1:1, in fact per-user stateful mode before it was released, >> not to say discuss in the WG. Don't the WG need to approve such big >> change anymore? >> >> Now let me provide my impression as an outsider of the MAP DT. You >> guys make great effort to build the solution, The address composition, >> the GMA algorithm, the different types of address mapping rules. >> should be quite difficult to pull together such sophisticated ideas. I >> guess that's what it takes to achieve the benifits of statelessness. >> And I admire that, bravo. Then, all of a sudden, you guys are saying, >> let's apply this sophisticated method to the different problem, by >> dropping quite some comlexity and twistting the mechanism a bit, seems >> it may work. Considering the problem are now solved in a more pure and >> clear way, I'm sorry but I CANNOT follow the logic here. >> >> On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Satoru Matsushima >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi Qiong, >>> >>> I'm disagree with your opinion. >>> >>> 1. Recent changes in draft-ietf-softwire-map-00 has been discussed in >>> the DT. >>> 2. MAP just covers so called '1:1 mode' with most granular mapping rule >>> for CEs provisioning, which is as one of its characteristics. >>> 3. The motivation draft does not restrict that as you stated, just >>> 'assumed', it's neither 'MUST' nor 'SHOULD'. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> --satoru >>> >>> >>> On 2012/06/24, at 14:35, Qiong wrote: >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> As we all know, once an individual draft is adopted as a WG draft, it >>>> is owned by the whole WG, rather than just the editors. Just as Remi >>>> said, the normal procedure to follow is to reach WG consensus _before_ >>>> posting a newly edited version. >>>> >>>> From draft-mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port-03 to >>>> draft-ietf-softwire-map-00, there are several changes between them. In >>>> particular, the newly introduced "1:1 mode", which decouples IPv4 and >>>> IPv6 addressing, has never been discussed openly in the WG mailing >>>> list, or even in the MAP design team either. >>>> >>>> Actually, this "1:1 mode" is against the stateless-4v6-motivation >>>> draft. The motivation draft has clearly defines the "Stateless 4/6 >>>> solution" as follows: >>>> >>>> Stateless 4/6 solution denotes a solution which does not require any >>>> per-user state (see Section 2.3 of [RFC1958]) to be maintained by any >>>> IP address sharing function in the Service Provider's network. This >>>> category of solutions assumes a dependency between an IPv6 prefix and >>>> IPv4 address. >>>> >>>> AFAIK what the WG has adopted MAP related draft is >>>> draft-mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port-03, NOT >>>> draft-ietf-softwire-map-00. And the stateless solution should ³response >>>> to the solution motivation document² according to the Softwire charter. >>>> That means draft-ietf-softwire-map-00 IS NOT QUALIFIED to be a WG draft. >>>> >>>> We can all recall that our softwire WG has worked on stateless >>>> solutions for more than one and a half years, and we have achieved a >>>> lot of work which has been documented in charter, stateless motivation, >>>> 4rd-varients, MAP-03, etc. AFAIK all the authors have kept the basic >>>> "stateless" principle and the MAP design team is also working on it >>>> together to find a better algorithm, address format, etc. So it is >>>> really not appropriate to make such changes when MAP is adopted as a WG >>>> item in such a short time. >>>> >>>> From this perspective, draft-ietf-softwire-map-00 can only be regarded >>>> as draft-XX-softwire-mapping-address-and-port-04. It is not even the >>>> output of MAP design team. >>>> >>>> Best wishes >>>> >>>> ============================================== >>>> Qiong Sun >>>> China Telecom Beijing Research Institude >>>> >>>> >>>> Open source code: >>>> lightweight 4over6: http://sourceforge.net/projects/laft6/ >>>> PCP-natcoord: http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcpportsetdemo/ >>>> =============================================== >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
