Sounds like we are time warped back to the Taipeh and Paris IETF where we had this discussion in all levels of detail ? We (==operator) needed more flexibility than MAP could offer and were willing to accept the cost of managing some state... Woj did not want to hear it by then, and this seems to be a never-ending story... :-).
If a figure helps to document that, fine. Just avoid to get back to square 1. Axel -----Original Message----- From: Softwires [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Simon Perreault Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 5:46 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-06.txt Le 2014-03-03 14:52, Wojciech Dec a écrit : > Lightweight 4over6 provides a solution for a hub-and-spoke softwire > architecture only, where the AFTR maintains (softwire) state for each > subscriber. A means for optmizing the amount of such state using > IPv4-IPv6 address mapping rules, as well as the option of meshed IPv4 > connectivity between subscribers, are features of the [I-D.ietf-softwire-map > <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-07#ref-I-D.ietf-softwire-map>] > solution. Optimality is in the eye of the operator. What MAP does is *minimize* the amount of state at the cost of flexibility. It may be more or less optimal depending on what you need. Suggestion: create a two-axis ASCII graph labeled "state" and "flexibility". Put MAP, lw4o6, and heck even DS-Lite in it at the appropriate spots. (This is not wordsmithing since I'm proposing a figure. It's figure-smithing.) Simon -- DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca NAT64/DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca STUN/TURN server --> http://numb.viagenie.ca _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
