2013/2/15 Rajiv Asati (rajiva) <[email protected]> > > My vote is to keep 1:1 mode in MAP. Removing it just doesn't make sense > (else, we might as well remove supporting host routing (/32 or /128) from > dynamic routing protocols). >
+1 i prefer to say that the early version did not include the 1:1 mode because of lack of understanding at that moment, on both the demands and what we can do with MAP. the 1:1 mode may enable MAP domain totally independent of the AS administration so that a MAP domain crossing over multiple regular routing domains is enabled. of course, we need more tools to deploy such an MAP overlay but the MAP supporting 1:1 mode is anyway a needed building block. - maoke > > Cheers, > Rajiv > > -----Original Message----- > From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Date: Thursday, February 14, 2013 5:55 AM > To: Ole Troan <[email protected]> > Cc: Softwires-wg list <[email protected]>, > "[email protected]" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Softwires] [softwire] #25: Maintain or remove MAP1:1 Mode? > > >Hi Ole, > > > >To start with, there was no consensus to include MAP1:1 in the MAP spec. > >Unless I'm mistaken, objection to include that mode in the base MAP spec > >was raised several times in the mailing list. It was mainly raised by > >authors of Lw4o6 but they are also contributors to softwire. > > > >As an editor of this document, with all due respect, you should ask the > >opinion of the WG before recording the consensus into the document. The > >WG owns this document and it can decide what to put on it. > > > >I'm personally in favour of removing MAP1:1 section from this document as > >this mode can not be packaged as stateless. But, this is only my opinion. > > > >Cheers, > >Med > > > >>-----Message d'origine----- > >>De : Ole Troan [mailto:[email protected]] > >>Envoyé : jeudi 14 février 2013 11:14 > >>À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN > >>Cc : [email protected]; [email protected] > >>Objet : Re: [softwire] #25: Maintain or remove MAP1:1 Mode? > >> > >>> #25: Maintain or remove MAP1:1 Mode? > >> > >>OK, so here is a task for whomever thinks MAP 1:1 mode should > >>be removed. > >> > >>- what does "remove MAP 1:1 mode mean"? > >>- please suggest text changes to the mechanism that removes 1:1 mode. > >> > >>given that my opinion is that 1:1 mode is an unremovable part > >>of MAP, the question just doesn't make sense to me. > >> > >>I don't want this issue to be an excuse to block a last call, > >>can we quickly resolve this, and can we agree to drop it if > >>there are no significant contributions within the next week? > >> > >>cheers, > >>Ole > >> > >> > >>> > >>> The WG discussed several times this point (refer to the mailing list > >>> archives). > >>> > >>> MAP1:1 mode is a particular mode which may re-use some of > >>the provisioning > >>> methods defined for MAP. > >>> > >>> MAP1:1 vs. Lw4o6: > >>> * MAP1:1 is not fully stateless. > >>> * Lw4o6 is a standalone specification which provides the > >>same service as > >>> MAP1:1. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> > >>-------------------------------------+------------------------- > >>------------ > >>> Reporter: | Owner: > >>draft-ietf-softwire- > >>> [email protected] | [email protected] > >>> Type: defect | Status: new > >>> Priority: major | Milestone: > >>> Component: map-e | Version: > >>> Severity: - | Keywords: > >>> > >>-------------------------------------+------------------------- > >>------------ > >>> > >>> Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/softwire/trac/ticket/25> > >>> softwire <http://tools.ietf.org/softwire/> > >>> > >> > >> > >_______________________________________________ > >Softwires mailing list > >[email protected] > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
