Hi Ted,
my comment refers specifically to the "characterization" of MAP in the introduction of the lw46 draft. I keep on restating this, because this characterization of MAP is not correct - the current text states "..If this type of meshed interconnectivity is required, [I-D.ietf-softwire-map<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-07#ref-I-D.ietf-softwire-map>] provides a suitable solution.", alongside a previous point of " The reduction of maintained state results in a greatly reduced logging overhead on the service provider." Hence re-stating: The defining characteristic of MAP is the optimization, or reduction if you prefer, of state via route aggregation. A by product of this also the optional mesh mode. Since the lw46 draft mentions that reduction of state is "greatly reduced" in positive terms, the text that I proposed is justified. Needless to say I do not agree with the current text, as it paints an incorrect picture to the reader of this space. As discussed with Ian, I'm willing to support text in the MAP-E draft along the lines of "the per-subscriber (1:1 mapping) rule case is further detailed in lw46", etc. This seemed like a reasonable re-solution to me and Ian. Regards, Wojciech. On 3 March 2014 16:40, Ted Lemon <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mar 3, 2014, at 2:10 PM, Wojciech Dec <[email protected]> wrote: > > From a previous mail (that you perhaps missed): > > I didn't miss it. The distinction you are making is finally making sense > to me after many repetitions. Sorry for being dense. > > I think what you are trying to avoid is the situation where a reader of > this specification decides to implement it rather than a hub-and-spoke-only > subset of MAP, even though MAP provides hub-and-spoke as well as the mesh > mode. > > But in practice, someone who does not want to implement full MAP probably > _is_ going to prefer lw4over6. Someone who reads both specs, wants to > implement MAP anyway, and is seeing no market pressure to implement > lw4over6 isn't going to decide to implement lw4over6 as well because of > this text. > > So I think the text actually says the right thing as currently written, > and is likely to be more confusing to the intended reader with your > proposed change. That's my opinion as a participant, not as AD--if the > working group disagrees with me, I'm totally okay with that. > >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
