Le 2012-06-26 à 08:04, Wojciech Dec a écrit : > > > On 25 June 2012 17:28, Rémi Després <[email protected]> wrote: > > 2012-06-25 à 16:24, Wojciech Dec: > ... > > 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, > > Having asked several times for a list of substantial evolutions from previous > MAP drafts, with their justifications, and having received no answer, I see > this statement as an indirect but first answer. > > Woj> You were provided with an answer (pls see Ole's mail).
Could you please indicate which one? > > > But it doesn't seem acceptable (*): > - AFAIK, the added 5th parameter of basic mapping rules is more than editorial > > Woj> Please indicate what the new parameter in your opinion is. In Section 5, "Forwarding mode" has become a BMR 5th parameter. In Section 5 of the mdt draft of january 30, there were only 4 BMR parameter. Anything missed? > - I didn't find the equivalent of the following sentence in previous drafts: > "A MAP-E CE provisioned with only a Default Mapping Rule, as in the 1:1 case, > and with no IPv4 address and port range configured by other means, MUST > disable its NAT44 functionality." Is there such an equivalent? Please answer (not answering the question isn't a way to eliminate it). > Woj> Well, perhaps you would like to suggest what the CPE should do in the > case the CPE is issued with a default mapping rule, ie a default route in map > terms, and the absence of an assigned IPv4 address or other parameters (BMR). > The above appears to be reasonable behaviour. > > => A carefully studied list of substantial changes MAP supporters have found > appropriate after the Paris meeting remains to be due. > > Woj> Take it from the other people who have done implementations, technically > there are no changes. In their implementation, maybe, but we talk about the specification. RD > > -Woj. > > > > > something that is proven by existing implementations prior to this draft > > supporting the current draft. > > Please understand that your stating that some tests (for which we don't have > detailed reports) should be considered a proof that what you say is true, is > difficult to accept. > Especially if what you say seems contradicted by a verifiable fact (see (*) > above). > > RD > >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
