On 2012-8-16, at 下午9:19, Simon Perreault wrote: > Le 2012-08-16 00:58, Maoke a écrit : >> same view. some operator would like to deploy things only with >> hub&spokes mode, it is fine. but for those who want to have mesh and >> hub&spokes simultaneously, there is no reason that we need two solutions >> especially when MAP has supported both. there is no need to limit MAP's >> scope with "focusing on mesh". > > The elephant in the room is that a provider that only needs hub-and-spoke > doesn't want to pay for the needless (subjectively) complexity of MAP.
[Qi] Agreed. > > Here's an idea: a restricted "profile" of MAP-E that would only allow > hub-and-spoke, described in a separate RFC, would look exactly like LW4o6, > right? And it could be implemented stand-alone, without all the mesh code. > And it could be listed on an RFP. [Qi] IMHO, with MAP-E sticking to the native MAP algorithm, that it achieves stateless at the cost of 4-6 coupling and makes full use of MAP rules, MAP-E will not be that like LW4o6. LW4o6 is a per-subscriber stateful solution. Am i right? Thanks! Qi > > Simon > -- > DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca > NAT64/DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca > STUN/TURN server --> http://numb.viagenie.ca > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
