+1 I also support MAP-E and MAP-T, as Maglione pointed out. We need to be respectful of the design team that produced MAP based on consideration and requirements. Not to forget that MAP-T (unlike others) has already been deployed.
Cheers, Rajiv Sent from my Phone On Aug 8, 2012, at 5:35 AM, "Maglione Roberta" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > in my opinion the design team did a great job in creating the MAP draft as > a common baseline specification for MAP-T and MAP-E flavors and the > presentations we saw in Vancouver last week shown that implementations for > both MAP-T and MAP-E already exist and they just differs for few lines of > code. > > As this working group already discussed in the past, there are use cases that > can be simply covered by MAP-T flavor of the MAP solution, for example being > able to apply ACL's and policies tied to customer's profile stored in Radius > server at the BNG level without requiring additional work and correlations on > the BR. > Speaking as a Service Provider I do care about these use cases, thus I would > encourage the working group to adopt the current MAP draft as is (including > MAP-T and MAP-E) as the basis for the proposed standard stateless solution > and keep working on common MAP solution. > > Thanks > Best regards, > Roberta > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Suresh Krishnan > Sent: mercoledì 8 agosto 2012 0.02 > To: Softwires WG > Subject: [Softwires] Call for confirming the selection of MAP-E as the basis > for the proposed standard stateless solution > > Hi all, > During the softwire WG meeting at IETF84 a series of questions* to > determine the preferred solution in the meeting room indicated that the > sense of the room was in favor of MAP-E as the basis for the proposed > standard stateless solution. > > This call is being initiated to confirm whether there is WG consensus > towards the selection of MAP-E as the basis for the proposed standard > stateless solution. Please state whether or not you're in favor of this > selection by replying to this email. If you are not in favor, please > also (re)state your objections in your response. The call will complete > at midnight EDT on 2012-08-21. > > Regards > Suresh & Yong > > * Questions are available at > > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-softwire-15.pdf > > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > > Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle > persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante > dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora > abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di > darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua > distruzione, Grazie. > > This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged > information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, > printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended > recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the > sender by return e-mail, Thanks. > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
