On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Satoru Matsushima <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Maoke, > > On 2012/06/27, at 10:48, Maoke wrote: > >> dear Satoru, >> >> 2012/6/26 Satoru Matsushima <[email protected]> >> 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? >> >> i like the philosophy of "multi-protocol socket". however, i moderately >> doubt the "multi-protocol socket v2.0" is a perfect plan for every cases. in >> a quite good hotel, we see typically one 'multi-protocol socket' while a lot >> of local-standard sockets. i never think it will make me happy if i see >> every socket in my room is *multi-protocol*, occupying much spaces and quite >> noticeable on the walls. we need one to deploy somewhere not the only one >> type to deploy anywhere. ;-) > > That point would be an operational matter for deploying any standardized > technology. For example, an operator adopt OSPF to use its rich routing > feature but the network is small, the operator does just area 0 routing, even > OSPF allow inter-area routing for scale. Is an another ospf specification > needed for 'OSPF Area 0 Only Routing'?
Well if I only have a simple network and I uses RIP, you don't make OSPF somehow compatible with RIP(or just include RIP with an OSPF terminology face? I don't know) and say "hey, just use this super suite, don't consider it overloaded, it's for unity!" > > >> >> therefore i understand the motivation of the wg is making a unified solution >> covering both encapsulation and translation in the framework of stateless, >> WITHOUT the exclusiveness against other solutions, more specifically >> suitable for a certain use case. >> > > Studying each significant use case is quite important. I agree on that point > with no doubt. However, is it IETF business for each use case specification? > > cheers, > --satoru > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
