Hi, As a document for standards track, I don't think lw4over6 should include this text to compare between lw4over6 and map, nor the so-called "pointer text" there.
I recommend we remove this text from the lw4over6 draft. Best Regards, Qi On 2014-3-6, at 上午11:27, Ian Farrer wrote: > Here’s the text that Woj mentioned: > > "Lightweight 4over6 provides a solution for a hub-and-spoke softwire > architecture only, where the lwAFTR maintains (softwire) state for each > subscriber. [I-D.ietf-softwire-map] offers a means for optimizing the amount > of such state by using algorithmic IPv4 to IPv6 address mappings to create > aggregate rules. This also gives the option of direct meshed IPv4 > connectivity between subscribers." > > My position on this is that I am fine with the text above, I’m happy with a > wordsmithed version that is mutually agreeable and I am also fine with the > text being removed altogether. > > Whichever one can get us past this point is the right answer. > > Ian > > On 6 Mar 2014, at 10:28, Wojciech Dec <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Qi, >> >> >> On 5 March 2014 17:17, Qi Sun <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Woj, >> >> I don't think map is more optimized than lw4over6 when IPv4 and IPv6 are >> totally decoupled (which is lw4over6 designed to deal with). I would prefer >> to follow Ole's suggestion at this point, i.e. remove this text. >> >> The point is that such state optimization is possible, using v4-v6 address >> mapping, which is a characteristic of MAP and mesh mode which the current >> text refers to is its by product. >> >> We have with Ian a new adequate sentence which fixes things, and I'll let >> Ian post it. It is important to have such text for at least the following >> reason: >> The solutions have much in common; utilize the same MAP PSID algorithm >> (although with different defaults), encap, etc. They're not thus orthogonal, >> and while some may wish to implement them independently, which is possible >> there is enough commonality to warrant to "pointer text". >> >> A side note >> In both lw4over6 and MAP the IPv4 address+PSID are embedded in the IPv6 >> address of a CE. So your statement of "totally decoupled" isn't quite >> accurate. >> >> Cheers, >> Wojciech. >> >> >> Best Regards, >> Qi >> >> >> On 2014-3-3, at 下午1:47, Wojciech Dec wrote: >> >>> >>> Current text in Section 1 reads: >>> >>> Lightweight 4over6 provides a solution for a hub-and-spoke softwire >>> architecture only. It does not offer direct, meshed IPv4 >>> connectivity between subscribers without packets traversing the AFTR. >>> If this type of meshed interconnectivity is required, >>> [I-D.ietf-softwire-map] provides a suitable solution. >>> >>> Propose changing the above to: >>> >>> 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, as well as the option of meshed IPv4 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> connectivity between subscribers, are features of the >>> [I-D.ietf-softwire-map] solution. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Wojciech. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
