On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Satoru Matsushima <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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? > Yes, there are mutliple choices for the provisioning protocol. But the essence here is 1.no v4-v6 address coupling, and thereby 2.explicitly provisoin the v4 address and port set. I would say the ORIGINAL MAP fits with neither points here.
BTW, if I may, my suggestion on MAP to deal with the situation of EA bit=0 is, just say in this case there is no algorithmic address mapping so it's not consistent with general case or the original motivation, and thereby not covered. I believe it is not the main scenario you want to cover and this way you keep MAP clean. _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
