On 2012/06/27, at 15:38, Peng Wu wrote: >> 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? > I'm clearly saying they have different use cases, but that's not the > point. Let me repeat. If I want RIP, you cannot just place RIP into > OSPF,
Agree on that it's not what I'm intended to. MAP thus never put DHCPv4 over IPv6, nor PCP into its specification. Please keep your mind in peace. > put an OSPF "face" on it, and force me to use the OSPF "suite" > while the essence of the protocol I'm using is still RIP. Not to force, MAP uses its MAP protocol to an use case which also could be covered by LW46's DHCPv4 over IPv6, or PCP. Correct? cheers, --satoru _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
