Hi, Wojciech, 2012-07-20 12:56, Wojciech Dec:
> Hi Maoke, ... > therefore i am objective of introducing PSID into the rule and making the > architecture stateless only in wording. > > If you mean that by having PSID as part of the rule, moves MAP from being > stateless to "stateful", then that's a misstatement. I share Maoke's understanding here. Independently of other reasons to prefer 4rd to MAP-T+E, documented elsewhere, I think that, in order to clarify what you mean, it would be useful to describe a MAP use case where PSID-in-a-rule is needed. > As per one of the earlier posts, stateless does NOT mean configuration less, > and MAP always required configuration, with PSID as part of rules or not. How > much configuration one wants to deal with is subject to specific deployment > considerations, and MAP allows that amount of configuration to be optimized > if a good deal of cases. The working of MAP is unchanged with the use of the > PSID as part of the ruleset, given a tradeoff with resepcet to more rules. > The main point here though is another: > If the use of PSIDs in rules is useful, as it appears to be, This is the point that needs to be explained. Thanks. RD > then there seems to be no reason not to allow that. > > Regards, > Woj. > > > - maoke > > > Regards, > Woj. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
