+1 agree. If there is no "mapping with addressing and port" at all, how can it still be called MAP anymore ?
Best wishes Qiong On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 2:35 AM, Lee, Yiu <[email protected]> wrote: > Ole, > > From my perspective, the argument is not whether two protocols are > identical or not. I found MAP-E 1:1 is a stateful solution. I found it odd > to make it part of MAP-E which was originally decided a stateless solution. > > Regards, > Yiu > > On 11/11/12 8:11 AM, "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? > >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 > > -- ============================================== 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
