Gang, I think you are on a wrong track here. 1. In Vancouver it was decided that MAP-E would be standard track, and both MAP-T and 4rd experimental. There is no longer any way to prevent those who want experimental MAP-T to have it. 2. The argument against ACLs is also an argument against 4rd.
If you agree, we can discuss how to best stop this thread. RD Le 2012-09-07 à 08:04, GangChen a écrit : > Hello all, > > As I identified, there is no issue to apply ACL either on fix networks > or mobile networks. Why most operators don't have issue, why there is > the issue for special operator. What is the issue? > > MAP-T and MAP-E have same address format. And, we have a good decision > to standard the MAP-E solution. > > Even ACL is needed, MAP-E is sufficient. There is no need to create > another flavor > > Considering above, MAP-T is superfluous. > I don't think we need spend much energy on that. > If there is something I missed, please kindly identify it before > submitting the MAP-T document. > > Many thanks > > Gang > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
