2012-07-26 14:06, <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> :
> Dear Ole, all, > > For sure MAP spec can be updated to cover 1:1 mode but this brings more > confusion for some people as this contradicts the "no state in ISP network" > paradigm. I personally vote for limiting MAP to its initial scope rather than > trying to cover other deployment options. > > I see three main flavours which justifies having standalone specification > documents: > > (1) Full stateful mode: DS-Lite > (2) Full stateless mode: MAP/4rd > (3) Per-customer state/binding mode: lw4o6 > (draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite) Same view. RD > > These three flavours have been already sketched in Figure 7 of RFC6346 (see > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6346#section-3.3.4). > > Having standalone specifications for each of these flavours helps operators > to better target their suitable deployment model without being disturbed with > parameters and details not pertinent for their deployment context. > > Cheers, > Med > >> -----Message d'origine----- >> De : softwires-boun...@ietf.org >> [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Ole Trøan >> Envoyé : jeudi 26 juillet 2012 12:23 >> À : Lee, Yiu >> Cc : Softwires-wg >> Objet : Re: [Softwires] map-00: review on the mode 1:1 >> >> Yiu, >> >>> Set EA bits=0 only saves bits in v6 address and decouples >> v4/v6 address >>> dependency. It doesn't bring any new function compared to >> embedding full >>> v4 address in the EA-bit. However, the operation models of >> EA-bit>0 or =0 >>> are very different. By the way, this works only for MAP-E. I >> fail to see >>> why we want to include this in the base spec. >> >> what do you say in the spec if EA=0 and provisioned IPv4 >> prefix length = 32. >> the spec has to say something about this to be complete. >> >> cheers, >> Ole >> >> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Yiu >>> >>> >>> On 7/25/12 9:45 PM, "Satoru Matsushima" <satoru.matsush...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Yiu, >>>> >>>> On 2012/07/26, at 4:08, Lee, Yiu wrote: >>>> >>>>> Ole, >>>>> >>>>> Where can I get the formal definition of 1:1 mode? My >> understanding of >>>>> 1:1 >>>>> refers to one public IPv4 address per subscriber but you refer very >>>>> specific to decoupling IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It doesn't 1:1 in MAP and 4rd context, because embedding full ipv4 >>>> address in ea-bits is as a result of prefix allocation operation. >>>> >>>>> Before MAP was accepted as WG item, MAP was proposed to embed IPv4 >>>>> address >>>>> information (EA bits > 0) in the CE IPv6 address to >> achieve stateless. >>>> >>>> No, there was no such definition for EA-bits length restriction. >>>> >>>>> Now there is a new proposal to add a new feature to have the IPv4 >>>>> information >>>>> in the BR only. This change requires to provision >> individual subscriber >>>>> information to the BR (instead of aggregated information). >> Benefit are >>>>> saving bits and breaking v4 and v6 address dependency. >>>> >>>> There's no change from previous spec, to just clarify MAP, >> as a stateless >>>> solution, could naturally support most granular mapping rule in its >>>> nature. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Questions to WG: >>>>> Is it useful feature to be included in MAP? If not, why >> and alternative? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I believe that it does not make sense to restrict EA-len > >> 0 for both MAP >>>> and 4rd. It does make sense that you see MAP as framework >> of solutions >>>> which covers specific 1:1 solution by the mapping algorithm. >>>> >>>> cheers, >>>> --satoru >>>> >>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Yiu >>>>> >>>>> On 7/25/12 2:40 PM, "Ole Trøan" <otr...@employees.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Yiu, >>>>>> >>>>>>> I am not asking whether MAP supports 1:1 mode with no EA >> bits or not. >>>>>>> I >>>>>>> am >>>>>>> asking MAP allows to embed the 32-bit address in the EA bits to >>>>>>> achieve >>>>>>> 1:1 mode: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "The EA bits can contain a full or part >>>>>>> of an IPv4 prefix or address, and in the shared IPv4 address case >>>>>>> contains a Port-Set Identifier (PSID)." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why not use this instead? >>>>>> >>>>>> you can do either. >>>>>> embedding a complete IPv4 address and PSID does require a >> lot of IPv6 >>>>>> space though. >>>>>> e.g. /56 - 32 - 6 = /18 >>>>>> >>>>>> 1:1 mode is typically referred to a model where IPv4 and IPv6 >>>>>> addressing >>>>>> are independent. >>>>>> >>>>>> cheers, >>>>>> Ole >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >> > _______________________________________________ > 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
