Hello Roberta,

For most operators, I haven't heard the issues existed. If those use
cases are just designed for this solution, this does not convince
anybody including me, and we do not need to discuss a scenario which
is to justify a solution.

What's your unique network architecture compared with others, can you
show us your concrete network architecture? What's your deployment
plan for MAP-T and where?

Thanks
Zhen

On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Maglione Roberta
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello Gang,
>     I do see some difference between MAP-E and MAP-T regarding the 
> application of ACL.
> Let's consider the following scenarios:
> - when a destination is outside of the MAP domain in case of MAP-E the CE 
> uses as IPv6 destination the IPv6 address of the MAP BR while for MAP-T it 
> uses the IPv4 address of the destination mapped in IPv6 by using the MAP IPv6 
> rule. If I need to apply an ACL that matches a destination outside of the map 
> domain I can only do that by using MAP-T;
> - another example is how to apply an ACL that matches UDP or TCP packets on 
> the BNG. My understanding is that this cannot be achieved with MAP-E, as the 
> IPv4 packet is encapsulated in IPv6.
>
> These are just a couple of examples about ACL, there are use cases with 
> operational implications, that can be simply addressed by MAP-T.
>
> Thanks
> Best regards,
> Roberta
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On 
> Behalf Of GangChen
> Sent: venerdì 7 settembre 2012 8.05
> To: softwires
> Subject: [Softwires] Is ACL really a point to drive MAP-T solution?
>
> 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
>
> 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

Reply via email to