Satoru, Mapping, binding, rule, state,call it whatever you want, essentially it's the same thing: per-user IPv6 address<=>IPv4 address+port-set. Or you are saying that this binding is purely static?
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Satoru Matsushima <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
