On 07/03/2014 3:04 AM, Wojciech Dec wrote:
On 6 March 2014 21:06, Lee, Yiu <[email protected]> wrote:
In the current text, there is no comparison term such as “more optimizing”
or “reducing”. These terms are used to comparing two solutions. I echo
Qiong and Qi in their replies: this is not necessary to compare two
solutions. Similarly, I also think it is not necessary to mention lw4o6 in
the MAP-E draft. Besides, please correct me if I am wrong, I remember the
WG decision is not to explicitly defining 1:1 in the MAP-E base spec. If
the WG wants to work on 1:1 MAP, it will be on a separate draft.
Two responses:
1. Given your statement above, and in view of the other text in the lw46
section that compares lw46 to DS-lite, I would propose that actually all
text that compares lw46 to other solutions text be removed. In particular
the following full paragraph should be removed (which is comparative to
DS-lite and MAP).
"By relocating
the NAPT functionality from the centralized AFTR to the distributed
B4s, a number of benefits can be realized:
o NAPT44 functionality is already widely supported and used in
today's CPE devices. Lw4o6 uses this to provide private<->public
NAPT44, meaning that the service provider does not need a
centralized NAT44 function.
o The amount of state that must be maintained centrally in the AFTR
can be reduced from per-flow to per-subscriber. This reduces the
amount of resources (memory and processing power) necessary in the
AFTR.
o The reduction of maintained state results in a greatly reduced
logging overhead on the service provider.
Operator's IPv6 and IPv4 addressing architectures remain independent
of each other. Therefore, flexible IPv4/IPv6 addressing schemes can
be deployed."
[PTT] Seems reasonable.
...
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
