Hi all,

I think the similar text should be added to MAP-E as well. 

Here is the proposal for the text adding to MAP-E (which was agreed offline):

>   MAP offers the capability of independence between IPv6 
>   subnet prefix and IPv4 address or, alternatively, allows for a
>   reduction of the amount of centralized state using rules to express
>   IPv4/IPv6 address mappings.  This introduces an algorithmic
>   relationship between the IPv6 subnet and IPv4 address.  This
>   relationship also allows the option of direct, meshed connectivity
>   between users. [I.D.ietf-softwire-lw4over6] is a solution designed 
>   specifically for complete independence between IPv6 subnet prefix 
>   and IPv4 address with or without IPv4 address sharing.  This is 
>   accomplished by maintaining state for each softwire (per-subscriber state) 
>   in the central lwAFTR and a hub-and-spoke forwarding architecture. 

//Even though I don’t think this text would add much value to lw4o6/MAP (as it 
doesn’t affect vendors to implement the mechanism), I do not want to start over 
the discussions, nor block the progress.

Thanks,
Qi

On May 9, 2014, at 9:01 PM, Suresh Krishnan <[email protected]> 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>  Since there was no response at all to this call, it is hard to read WG 
> consensus. I can only assume that nobody feels strongly about this specific 
> issue. Since both MAP-E and lw4over6 have completed WGLC, I am inclined to 
> just progress them as is. If I do not hear any objections to this by Monday 
> May 12 2014, I will progress these drafts as is.
> 
> Thanks
> Suresh
> 
> On 04/29/2014 01:48 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>    The following text was added to version -08 of the lw4over6 draft to 
>> describe the relationship between MAP-E and lw4over6.
>> 
>> "Lightweight 4over6 is a solution designed specifically for
>> complete architecture only. It does not offer direct, meshed IPv4
>> independence between IPv6 subnet prefix and IPv4 address with or
>> connectivity between subscribers without packets traversing the
>> AFTR.  without IPv4 address sharing. This is accomplished by
>> maintaining If this type of meshed interconnectivity is required,
>> state for each softwire (per-subscriber state) in the central
>> lwAFTR [I-D.ietf-softwire-map] provides a suitable solution.  and
>> a hub-and-spoke forwarding architecture. [I-D.ietf-softwire-map]
>> also offers these capabilities or, alternatively, allows for a
>> reduction of the amount of centralized state using rules to
>> express IPv4/IPv6 address mappings. This introduces an
>> algorithmic relationship between the IPv6 subnet and IPv4
>> address. This relationship also allows the option of direct,
>> meshed connectivity between users."
>> 
>> There was an implicit expectation that similar text (pretty much reversing 
>> the order in which the mechanisms are described) would be added to the MAP-E 
>> draft as well. In order to do so, we need to do a short consensus check.
>> 
>> If you believe such text is useful and should be added to the MAP-E draft as 
>> well please respond to this mail to say so. On the other hand, if you 
>> believe such text is *not useful* and should be instead removed from the 
>> lw4over6 draft, please respond and say so as well. This call will conclude 
>> on 6th May 2014.
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Suresh & Yong
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

Reply via email to