On 2012/06/27, at 0:11, Qiong wrote: > Agree with Ian. > > MAP is designed and optimized for algorithmatic address mapping, but not for > per-subscriber rule mapping. Actually, the more you would like to solve, more > complicated it will become. > > I will certainly not buy MAP for per-subscriber case when MAP-T, MAP-E, > map-dhcp all becomes useless or not optimized. And I will not deploy > per-subscriber stateful and stateless solutions at the same. > > So I encourage two seperated approaches optimized for different scenarios. It > will be good for both. > > Do we really all forget about the "KISS" principle ?
Not quite. I believe that the most motivate to start this work in the wg has destined MAP to be 'multi-protocol socket v2.0' that's what the former wg chair wished to. Do you remember that? cheers, --satoru _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
