On 2013/02/15, at 18:34, Xing Li <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, Ian, > > The 1:1 mode is a natural characteristic of MAP and removing it from the > draft will cause more confusion. Please also see > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xli-softwire-map-testing/ > which shows that a MAP CPE can naturally support 1:1 mode. > > Regards, > > xing >
ASAMAP too. cheers, --satoru > > [email protected] 写道: >> Hi Ole, >> >> Assuming that the Unified CPE draft gets adopted by the workgroup, then >> there needs to be alignment of the different drafts reflecting this. >> >> The unified CPE draft describes how a CPE interprets the presence (or lack >> of) configuration parameters to understand which softwire mode to >> configure. If a MAP CE implemented this (to be a 'unified MAP CE'), then >> it would have two ways of configuring 1:1 mode - via the presence of the >> tunnel endpoint address, an IPv4 address (and optionally a restricted port >> range) and also through a BMR with EA=0. >> >> Two ways of configuring the same function doesn't seem like a good idea, >> even if the underlying mechanism that this function is implemented with is >> different. >> >> So, what I would propose is that EA=0 for MAP is not included as a >> provisioning option in the MAP draft. If the parameters described in the >> unified CPE draft required for 1:1 mode are configured on the unified MAP >> CE, then it should interpret these to mean EA=0 and configure itself >> accordingly. >> >> >> I also think that it would be cleaner if this 1:1 functionality was >> described in a separate document to the current MAP draft. As the 1:1 mode >> functionality of MAP is a big architectural change to the mesh mode >> function, it really needs a lot more than 2 paragraphs in order to >> describe what it is and how it is used. >> >> >> Best regards, >> Ian >> >> On 14/02/2013 11:14, "Ole Troan" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>>> #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
