HI Maoke, Comments in line.
Cheers, Ian Deutsche Telekom AG Group Technology Ian Farrer IP Engineering Landgrabenweg 151, 53227 Bonn, Germany +49 228 93638046 (Phone) +49 170 4557418 (Mobile) E-Mail: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>www.telekom.com<http://www.telekom.com/> Life is for sharing. Deutsche Telekom AG Supervisory Board: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Lehner (Chairman) Board of Management: René Obermann (Chairman), Reinhard Clemens, Niek Jan van Damme, Timotheus Höttges, Dr. Thomas Kremer, Claudia Nemat, Prof. Dr. Marion Schick Commercial register: Amtsgericht Bonn HRB 6794 Registered office: Bonn VAT identification no. DE 123475223 Big changes start small – conserve resources by not printing every e-mail. From: Maoke <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Wednesday, 6 February 2013 02:58 To: Ian Farrer <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [Softwires] Call for adoption of draft-bfmk-softwire-unified-cpe-02 2013/2/5 <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Hi Maoke, Thanks for your response. Comments inline. Cheers, Ian From: Maoke <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Tuesday, 5 February 2013 06:54 To: Suresh Krishnan <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Softwires WG <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Yong Cui <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, Ralph Droms <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [Softwires] Call for adoption of draft-bfmk-softwire-unified-cpe-02 hi Suresh and all, personally i think this work is still premature for the WG adoption. reasons are below: 1. current draft makes a logic for the CPE to decide its mode according to what information it received from DHCP options. however, DHCP options are not the only available provision mean. what if my CPE get MAP information through DHCP, while lw4over6 information from PCP, while another MAP domain's provision through manually configuration? when such kind of basic questions not yet fully discussed, i doubt it is suitable to adopt this work at so early stage. [ian] The intention for the draft is to describe using the presence (or absence) of configuration parameters so that a CPE can work out which mode to configure. The DHCP section is there to show how this would work if you were using DHCP as the config mechanism, but it doesn't [maoke] the draft states "e.g." for the DHCP configuration firstly but later the total discussion is based on only DHCP. i doubt this can be a good direction for the further approach. [ian] That's not the intention. Only section 3.3 discusses DHCP in depth to show how this works. The implementation is given as a should req. to be in line with the DHCP provisioning should requirements in both MAP and lw4o6. Point taken however – I'll try and make the rest of the document (e.g. Except sec 3.3) less DHCP focused. 2. some important issues are not yet comprehensively discussed, or almost missing, in the current draft. e.g. (but not limited to), - what is the correct NAPT source port overlapping behaviour for the unified CPE? - what is the correct fragment/reassemble behaviour for the unified CPE? [ian] I agree that these are problems that need to be addressed across both MAP and LW, but both of these problems need solutions that are aligned at both ends of the softwire, not just the CPE. [maoke] NAPT issue is totally CPE issue. i don't agree it is a problem for the *both* ends. fragmentation issue involves both sides, but CPE behaviour impacting the anycast BR/AFTR performance is a well-known issue in the community. even BR/AFTR has any change, the CPE must contain a work on this issue. [ian] If there are overlapping source ports, then this is also a problem for the concentrator. If multiple initiators share the same v4 destination address / source ports, on what basis can the initiator forward ingress traffic? [ian] For the fragmentation question, Ole proposed this as being a suitable task to tackle as it is common to all solutions. I would propose that this is how it is tackled, and then any affected drafts are updated based on the outcome. as currently there is no MAP members joins this draft, i am worrying that the draft has fully reflected the concern from the MAP side. [ian] As there haven't been any comments on the draft for some time from anyone involved in the WG, I'm hoping that this means that everyone is happy with the content! [maoke] happy with the content at current stage = acknowledge to the authors' effort != happy with the content at the level of WG adoption. ;-) for the time being... [ian] Let's see what the outcome of the adoption call is then. - maoke thanks and regards, maoke 2013/2/5 Suresh Krishnan <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Hi all, This draft was a result of the discussion initiated at the softwire meeting in Atlanta to attempt to come up with a unified CPE specification that can work with both MAP and lw4o6. This call is being initiated to determine whether there is WG consensus towards adoption of draft-bfmk-softwire-unified-cpe-02 as a softwire WG draft. Please state whether or not you're in favor of the adoption by replying to this email. If you are not in favor, please also state your objections in your response. This adoption call will complete on 2013-02-18. Regards Suresh & Yong _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
