And much as was also said before, this categorization is bogus as all solutions need configuration state, ie categorizing solutions based on "amount of configuration" or some fluffy term like "binding approach" is equivalent to categorizing them based on "how long is a piece of string" and ultimately useless. What we do know is one-size of string does not work for all, and the implementers need to scale their configuration state as per their best judgement/capabilities.
Cheers, Woj. On 30 November 2012 09:48, Qiong <bingxu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Right. That's why I prefer the solution space provided by Med before, > which will be much clearer and easy to understand: > * Full stateful approach > * Binding approach > * Full stateless approach > > Best wishes > Qiong > > > On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Leaf yeh <leaf.y....@huawei.com> wrote: > >> Mark - I think the only question that should be on the table is whether a >> 1:1 rule is called something different or not - kind of like how we refer >> to a /32 or /128 as a hostroute. > > > > > -- > ============================================== > 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 > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
