Hi Yuchi, On 2012/11/14, at 5:56, "Yuchi Chen" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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, MAP introduce complication and flixibility threat!? Not at all. So then, could you answer how much complicated is complicated, and how much flexibility do you need? > 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. Why 1:1 is stateful? I'm not clear where is the threshold to distinguish stateful and stateless? N=2, 3, or 4??? > > 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. > Doesn't AFTR maintain mapping of remote IPv6 endpoint address with IPv4 address and port? cheers, --satoru _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
