On 12 March 2014 10:32, <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Woj,
>
> Just for context, the 'complete independence' wording was taken from the
> map-dhcp draft (section 3). The hope was that this wouldn't be a
> contentious phrase because of that.
>

Well, but given that it's not technically accurate it doesn't really matter
where it's taken from.
Can't really say more about this other than what I replied to previously.
If you really want some text in there, I'd be ok with text like: "Both
solutions allow for IPv6 prefix independence, i.e.the IPv6 prefix does not
embed an IPv4 address and/or port set" although it doesn't really add
anything of major relevance,

I think we'd be best served without re-hashing the lengthy discussion we
had at the meeting or having another long email thread here on a few words
and delay the lw46 draft further, i.e. let's stay with the chairs'
conclusion on the matter.

Cheers,
Wojciech.


> Cheers,
> Ian
>
> From: Wojciech Dec <[email protected]>
> Date: Wednesday, 12 March 2014 10:25
> To: Qi Sun <[email protected]>
> Cc: Softwires-wg WG <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [Softwires] Proposed text that describes lw4o6 and map-e
>
> Hi Qi,
>
> thanks, but I'd rather stick with the text that we proposed and
> (lengthily) discussed at the meeting, i.e.:
>
> "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 reducing 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."
>
> Note: Your text is different to the above,  and claims "complete
> independence" which is not accurate in view of the fact that lw46 DOES
> embed the IPv4 address in the IPv6 address. In terms of embedding stuff in
> the "prefix part" (i.e. the top /64), both solutions allow "complete prefix
> independence", so that's a null point.
>
> Regards,
> Wojciech.
>
>
>
> On 12 March 2014 08:51, Qi Sun <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> According to the discussion last Friday, there should be some text
>> describing the characteristics of lw4o6 and map-e with cross-referece, and
>> the text should be the same (or almost the same).
>>
>> The two points that are requested to be in the text:
>> * MAP-E achieves aggregated rules
>> * MAP-E does mesh
>>
>> Here is the proposal:
>>
>> In lw4o6 draft, section of Introduction:
>> Lightweight 4over6 provides a solution with complete independence of IPv4
>> and IPv6 addressing (i.e., the IPv6 prefix does not embed an IPv4 address
>> and/or port set). This is accomplished by maintaining state for each
>> softwire (per-subscriber state) in the lwAFTR and using a hub-and-spoke
>> architecture whereby all traffic traverse the lwAFTR. [I-D.ietf-softwire-
>> map] offers a means for reducing 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.
>>
>> In MAP-E draft, section of Introduction:
>> MAP-E offers a means for reducing the amount state held in the BR by
>> using algorithmic IPv4 to IPv6 address mappings to create aggregate rules.
>> This also gives the option of direct, meshed IPv4 connectivity between
>> subscribers. Lightweight 4over6 [I-D.ietf-softwire-lw4over6] provides a
>> solution with complete independence of IPv4 and IPv6 addressing
>> (i.e., the IPv6 prefix does not embed an IPv4 address and/or port set).
>> This is
>> accomplished by maintaining state for each softwire (per-subscriber state)
>> in the lwAFTR and using a hub-and-spoke architecture whereby all traffic
>> traverse the lwAFTR.
>>
>> The above text has been agreed by the lw4over6 co-authors.
>> @Woj, could you please see if the the proposal resolves your concern?
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Qi
>>
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

Reply via email to