I'd say they are, in that the IPv6 address for MAP has semantics buried
in it.
But the really relevant difference between MAP and LW4over6 is the
latter's requirement for the AFTR to carry and use per-subscriber data.
That is a fundamental factor in the cost equation. However, the cost of
the AFTR is only part of the total system cost (including the cost of
operation and feasibility of deployment), and the tradeoffs for some
operators will be different from those for others.
On 11/11/2012 8:11 AM, Ole Trøan wrote:
Qiong,
Now that you need to optimize the implementation for different requirements,
why not optimize it from protocol level ? So that every vendor would know how
to implement for different requirements, rather than let operators pushing
vendors one by one and tell them how to do.
what is the difference in protocol?
are the bits on the wire between these two proposals different?
cheers,
Ole
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
