2013-02-14 16:30, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) <[email protected]> : > > My vote is to keep 1:1 mode in MAP. Removing it just doesn't make sense
Your point, similar to that of Ole, is that 1:1 is intrinsic to the design. Even if not explicitly stated, it therefore cannot be removed from it. To put an end to this time-wasting controversy, it is then easy to just delete explicit references to 1:1 (section 7.4 and examples 4 and 5). > (else, we might as well remove supporting host routing (/32 or /128) from > dynamic routing protocols). Of course you aren't serious here ;-). Regards, RD > > 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
