Ted,
On 18 March 2014 14:56, Ted Lemon <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mar 18, 2014, at 9:04 AM, Wojciech Dec <[email protected]> wrote: > > For these rather fundamental reasons your statement appears to > "technically" unjustified. > > If I understand Qi's point correctly, he is saying that in order to > implement MAP, you have to implement the MAP algorithm. Whereas you don't > need this algorithm for lw4over6. I think this statement is correct, but > your proposed rewording removes that distinction for some reason. > > You appear to be quoting me out of context. I wrote: "Mapping bits, or inserting bits, or shifting bits are all operations done using an algorithm and a lw46 implementation will use these and a plethora of other algorithms. Anyway, if it makes you happy we can go with the following text that mentions "algorithm"...." All that said, and for correctness, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-07 states: " An lwB4 MUST support dynamic port-restricted IPv4 address provisioning. The port set algorithm for provisioning this is described in Section 5.1 of [I-D.ietf-softwire-map <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-07#ref-I-D.ietf-softwire-map>]. For lw4o6, the number of a-bits SHOULD be 0. " It's rather clear that lw46 also uses "an algorithm", if not THE "algorithm"... Whatever. -Wojciech.
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
