Hi Satoru,
I think the main issue here is not about "naming", but about the original
motivation of MAP. AFAIK MAP draft promotes a stateless provisioning method
using mapping with address and port. Although the algorithm MAP draft promotes
is kind of complicated and couples v4 and v6 addresses, which introduces a
potential threat of flexibility, but it's well designed and beautiful indeed
and makes MAP attractive to those who want such a stateless solution. If MAP
turns out a stateful solution in 1:1 mode (no matter what kind of state it's
like), I don't think it will be so charming to these people any more, and I
think people who wants 1:1 may prefer to another solution which is much
simpler, satisfies the 1:1 scenario well and does not introduce any flexibility
problem.
It will be appreciated if you would so kind clarify the real motivation of MAP,
and the meaning of 'mapping' you used to describe the DS-Lite (which is a
well-known stateful solution) if possible, and thus it may help us keep
discussion more constructively.
Best regards!
Yuchi Chen
From: Satoru Matsushima
Date: 2012-11-13 01:06
To: Qiong
CC: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Softwires] MAP-E 1:1 for HA
Qiong,
On 2012/11/13, at 12:57, Qiong <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 agree.
>
> If there is no "mapping with addressing and port" at all, how can it still be
> called MAP anymore ?
It is conventional naming. Even DS-Lite has mapping with address and port.
Please keep discussion constructively.
--satoru
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
