+1. It all covers what I argued in the long thread just on today, thanks Woj.
cheers, --satoru On 2012/06/25, at 23:24, Wojciech Dec wrote: > Hi, > > taking a step back to discuss some items in more detail, and hopefully move > this discussion forward: > > 1. Domain size > The MAP architecture does not prescribe the size of a domain, and neither > does it prescribe the number of rules to be used. There is nothing in the > technology, except vendor implementation limits or practical sense (or both), > to prevent MAP domains from defining 1 domain = 1 CPE. This was a day 1 > characteristic of MAP drafts. > Choosing to deploy or implement MAP with a configuration supporting 1 rule, > 100 rules or 100k rules or domains is a vendor's and/or operator's choice. > Nobody is stating that deployment is to be limited to X rules, nor that a > near infinite number of rules is reasonable. These are general points that > apply to DS-lite state as well as the "Light Weight 4 over 6" or "stateless > deterministic NAT", and pretty much any technology for that matter. > > 2. Stateless DOES NOT mean configuration-less > There appears to be confusion between the concept of stateless and > configuration-less. MAP domains are based on configured rules, that are > provisioned/applied through means that are currently outside the scope of > Softwire drafts - this is configuration state, and this was and continues to > be a characteristic of MAP. > Further more, unlike some of the other proposals, MAP allows to optimize the > amount of configuration needed in cases where this is viable. In other words, > MAP does NOT exclusively force 1:1 rule configuration, but also allows N:1. > > 3. Stateless has no data plane induced state > A major difference between stateless (eg MAP) and stateful (eg Carrier Grade > NAT44/Ds-Lite) solutions is that the latter are characterised by dynamic core > node forwarding state that is directly driven by user data-plane traffic (eg > new IP flows). MAP does not rely on such dynamic state, never did. > > 4. No change of MAP spec > The updated MAP draft does not change the MAP architecture nor its technical > underpinnings. In fact there are no changes, bar editorial to the normative > parts of MAP, something that is proven by existing implementations prior to > this draft supporting the current draft. A few individuals appear to object > to new descriptive text which highlights the usage of MAP, eg in 1:1. > Removing that text will not change the matter that MAP allows such usage. > Prohibiting such use by specification would actually require a spec change, > besides being unreasonable. > > 5. What is the problem? > We're pleased to see a growing understanding of MAP's applicability to solve > problems, incl v4-v6 address independence, when needed. Given that the emails > on this thread do not appear to bring forward any technical issues with the > MAP solution, could we know WHY we need other solutions to the problem, or > what is the problem that remains to be solved? > > Taking the liberty to speak on behalf of the other MAP authors, I would like > to say that we all remain open for collaboration with all WG members in terms > of arriving at a minimal set of reasonable solutions that solve problems that > the community cares about. We also trust that our renewed WG leadership will > finally help us all in getting there. > > Regards, > Woj. > > On 25 June 2012 08:51, Qi Sun <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Satoru, > > In MAP 1:1 mode, if there are 10000000 subscribers, there would be 10000000 > MAP domains which a BR has to manage. I think that will create a huge mapping > table on the BR, which is called 'state' that stateful solutions deal with. > > Best Regards! > > Qi Sun > > From: Satoru Matsushima > Date: 2012-06-25 10:27 > To: Lee, Yiu > CC: [email protected]; Yong Cui > Subject: Re: [Softwires] [Softwire] draft-ietf-softwire-map-00 does NOT > reflect the consensus from the WG > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
