Ole,
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 9:11 PM, Ole Trøan <[email protected]> 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? > [Qiong] I list some of the differences below: 1) In lw4over6, IPv6 address does not have IPv4-related semantics, while in MAP, IPv6 address has IPv4-related semantics (EA-bits) 2) In lw4over6, there is no need to import mapping rules, e.g. FMRs, etc., to CPEs, and there is no need for CPEs to understand the IPv6 prefix rule length, IPv4 prefix rule length, etc. 3) In lw4over6, lwAFTR can support dynamically creating, deleting, renewing, and maintaining these subscriber bindings. This will greatly reduce the configuration overload and trouble shooting. While in MAP, the BR and CE MUST be configured with the MAP elements (section 7 of draft-ietf-softwire-map). > are the bits on the wire between these two proposals different? > [Qiong] The two proposals not only define the "bits on the wire", but also the functionalities need to be supported in both CE/lwB4 and BR/lwAFTR. Best wishes Qiong > > cheers, > Ole -- ============================================== Qiong Sun China Telecom Beijing Research Institude Open source code: lightweight 4over6: *http://sourceforge.net/projects/laft6/* PCP-natcoord:* http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcpportsetdemo/ * ===============================================
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
