Hi, Satoru,
I believe OSPF never abandon its own essence in order to be a super suite and
do something very strange to cover the use case which can be easily and clearly
done by RIP.
What's more, MAP is not OSPF, and LW4over6 is not RIP. MAP and LW4over6 have
their own use case when they are originally designed. MAP is not supposed to do
the 1:1 mode in the beginning.
Regards!
Jiang Dong
From: Satoru Matsushima
Date: 2012-06-27 12:37
To: Peng Wu
CC: softwires; ian.farrer
Subject: Re: [Softwires] [Softwire] draft-ietf-softwire-map-00 does NOT reflect
the consensus from the WG
On 2012/06/27, at 12:36, Peng Wu wrote:
>>> 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!"
Oh, you don't argue that OSPF covers an use case which is also covered by RIP.
So then why are you arguing that an use case of MAP is eventually same with the
LW46 use case?
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
