i share the same view with Remi. and ACL is not the only reason that MAP-T is needed. - maoke 2012/9/7 Rémi Després <[email protected]>
> 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 >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
