Hi Satoru, Please see inline.
BTW, my name is Qi :) Qi Sun On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Satoru Matsushima < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Qiong, > > On 2012/06/27, at 16:54, Qi Sun wrote: > > > Hi Satoru, > > > > Please see inline. > > > > Qi Sun > > > > 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. > > > > [Qi] That's not what the thread is discussing. Please do not try to > change the topic. > > > > Not intended. > > > > 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? > > > > [Qi] Do you mean MAP can do all these things WITHOUT ANY help from other > documents, saying DHCPv6 options? > > Ah, ok. MAP define mapping rule as its protocol. DHCPv6 is a bearer of > mapping rules. > [Qi] What we are discussing is on the essence of MAP where 1:1 mode is intended to import binding table on BR , and on whether the ietf-map-00 is qualified as a WG draft without consensus of the softwire WG. Rather than the provisioning methods, saying DHCPv4 over IPv6 or DHCPv6 options. > > > All those mechanisms like DHCPv4 over IPv6 or PCP are not the essence > of the protocol but provisioning method for LW4over6. > > Actually, based on what you have said, I can get that the "new" MAP can > achieve its NEW added 1:1 mode with the help of DHCPv4 over IPv6 for IPv4 > address allocation. Why don't you use it, which has been a DHC WG draft? > > > > These are not possible because they require state in BR so that it's LW46 > use case, right? MAP define mapping rule in stateless manner. > [Qi] As a provisioning method, DHCPv4 over IPv6 DOES NOT require any state in TC/BR. Please check the draft. As a result, this is not about stateful or stateless. There is no conflict between the binding table on BR and the DHCPv4 over IPv6 process. > cheers, > --satoru
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
