Hi Maoke-san, On 2012/06/25, at 12:07, Maoke wrote:
> hi Satoru-san, Qiong, and all, > > i think the current 1:1 mode text of the draft should be tuned or, it would > be better, to be removed. > > technically, i expect MAP as a completely per-session, per-subscriber > stateless solution and therefore per-subscriber mapping rule is not accepted. > in theory, of course, it could be an extension mode of MAP operation but, in > practice, it makes the solution quite fuzzy, the code quite heavy. we (me and > my company) wouldn't like to have a standard where supporting for both > per-subscribe stateless and per-subscribe stateful mappings should be done > together within a monolithic implementation. we support the lightweight > 4over6 as an independent standard. > Hmm, I've read 'draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite' as you called 'lightweight 4over6'. LW46 for short, it looks me that MAP just provides LW46 a provisioning means which would be described in the section 5, or appendix section because following text described in section 5: "Other optional alternatives to retrieve the public address and port- set also exist. The specific protocol extensions are out of scope in this document, however some alternatives are mentioned in the Appendix section." I think that MAP and LW46 is in relation of mutual complement. MAP doesn't obsolete LW46, and vice versa. Thought? cheers, --satoru _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
