Hi Woj, Please see inline.
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Wojciech Dec (wdec) <[email protected]> wrote: > > It is my opinion that we've discussed this 1:1 mode many many times > before, and at each time concluded that a) it is a natural characteristic > of MAP ii) it would actually require *more text* (and complexity) to > remove it. > Sorry I can hardly find such conclusion. 1) In the current text, the PSID option is only used in this 1:1 mode which will have impact on both DHCPv6 server and CPE. 2) From the testing draft, there is a dedicated parameter "-X" to indicate no embedding EA-bits in IPv6 prefix which is not used in normal MAP-E/MAP-T. So for me, it is hard to say this 1:1 mode is a natural characteristic of MAP. Long long time ago, we spent two days in Beijing Interim meeting to discuss what need to be covered in MAP, what's the motivation and requirement of each functional element, including Encapsulation, Translation, Hub&Sope and Mesh. That comes to be the draft-ietf-softwire-map-00. But now, 1:1 mode was just simply added without any discussion about the motivation, requirement in the working group, and not covered in stateless motivation draft either. It did raise confusion of why this is needed in MAP (two address sharing mechanisms in one solution), and how it should be used. So I suggest to reach consensus on motivation and requirement text first before processing 1:1 mode in MAP. For MAP-base draft, I do think removing 1:1 mode would help MAP to be a more cleaner stateless solution and easy understanding. Best wishes Qiong
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
