hi Woj, let me truncate the old text that makes this message too long. focusing on the recent replies.
2012/7/19 Wojciech Dec <wdec.i...@gmail.com> > Hello Maoke, > > okay, if your "MAP algorithm" refers to the GMA, it is fine to state GMA >> is usable to address/port-set assignment and/or stateless IPv4-mapped IPv6 >> address generation. however, only the GMA doesn't make MAP as a "mapping of >> address and port". the purpose of mapping is making a stateless packet >> transform at the IPv4/IPv6 boundary and vise versa. >> > > The mapping still happens, in the lower 64 bits. > clarified. thanks. > > >> if you argue GMA is generic for universal cases of A+P ( i actually agree >> that ), i suggest to submit GMA separately as a standard or as an update of >> A+P, so that stateful/stateless solutions are able to cite it easily. >> > > That's what it was, but it was said to be "too many drafts". > >> >> >>> In addition, the IPv4+PSID are still mapped to IID as per MAP. Thus >>> there is no "algorithm is abandoned" case, as you put it. >>> >> >> this a little differs from my early reading on the MAP draft stating 1:1. >> you clarify here that in any cases IPv4+PSID is embedded in the mapped IPv6 >> address. >> >> >>> The PSID is intended to be passed as part of the Optional Port >>> Parameters, which the draft already has as part of the FMRs, and what has >>> also been discussed in the DT. >>> >> >> yes we have the optional port parameters. but i didn't remember what DT >> discussed included the topic of having the value of PSID in the FMR. >> > > Please refer to Satoru-san's emails on the topic. > >> >> on the other hand, i think current talk is going on at the WG stage >> rather than the DT. even if i didn't show objection to that issue in the >> DT, i don't think i would have been disabled to show it in the WG. >> >> >>> This is another type of 1:1 rules, which I agree is an item of >>> clarification in the draft, but eminently possible under the current spec >>> as the the MAP architecture is agnostic to how the IPv6+IPv4+Rules get to >>> the device >>> >> >> sorry i cannot catch the meaning of the "agnostic to"... :P i understand >> "how the IPv6+IPv4+Rules get to the device" is the mission of MAP-DHCP >> rather than the MAP architecture. >> > > Agnostic to means, that the working of the MAP architecture doesn't rely > on any specific MAP rule or address provisioning method. Should be noted > that IPv6 addresses are also provisioned, and can be so by multiple methods. > "any specific MAP rule" or any specific rule-making algorithm? if the former, no objection here. if the latter, i don't see anything essential other than a rule-making algorithm in the "MAP architecture". and this rule-making algorithm is what i support through the MDT and the WG. > >> >> if the multiple-CE domain and the single-CE domain should have different >> attributes, i don't think this is not a novelty. and i am against this >> configuration parameter no matter if it is *stated* as a non-novelty or >> not. >> > > And what is the reason for this objection? > does MAP intend to support mesh topology with the PSID value included in the rule? if so, i doubt any CE device (especially those having limited resources) can do with that. if it is not, the architecture happens with 2 configurations not orthogonal: if PSID, no mesh -- it confuses that the highest priority design goal of MAP is not statelessness and simplicity but the PSID. therefore i am objective of introducing PSID into the rule and making the architecture stateless only in wording. - maoke > > Regards, > Woj. > >> >> >>
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
