Dear Tom & all, IMHO, in addition to Tom's points, draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite is easier for OAM because there is no port mapping algorithm. It does not require operators to plan IPv6 and IPv4 address pool together, which is convenient for operators whose IPv4 address pools are scattered, or IPv4/IPv6 address resources are managed by different servers.
Also, I think draft-cui-* is ready to move forward. Best Regards, Qi Sun On 2013-1-29, at 下午12:32, Tom Taylor wrote: > I figured it was time to pick on someone else, so I reviewed > draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite. I found it really easy to > understand, and all I found to change was a couple of typos. > > Of course, one reason lw4o6 easier to read than MAP is because it does not > describe a port mapping algorithm. The other reason is because the MAP > document has to describe the EA bits and their use. But that's a fundamental > difference between the two approaches, and I can't see much chance to > simplify MAP. The only possibility is to change the provisioning approach to > provision the Rule IPv6 prefix, the complete shared IPv4 address, and the > PSID explicitly, then describe how to construct the MAP endpoint IPv6 address. > > Getting back to draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite, I'd say it's ready > to be adopted. > > Tom Taylor > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
