Re: [Softwires] MAP documents - next steps

Maoke <fibrib@gmail.com> Thu, 02 February 2012 09:28 UTC

Return-Path: <fibrib@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BEB121F8978 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 01:28:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.298
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SWTUAumYa1hD for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 01:27:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qw0-f51.google.com (mail-qw0-f51.google.com [209.85.216.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38E9F21F8974 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 01:27:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qan41 with SMTP id 41so1447404qan.10 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Thu, 02 Feb 2012 01:27:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Z0zWhygTUn8mxWhKsYQU1kBt9nyWNe+ZIi4d3Dc1UOc=; b=eASaVPQkkAvLgi7kUdDjR7dmOck0gp4YMT8AqfMg+yopcOhnoS1NqLSYRqFI0Mz4Cw 4MkM6CeAPyrJGRg1k/YIAtibwQc3e7TEr1D/OOi29UUKGuUBZFp0T22cY2w/NZtu7yql jnBnCe+8gIXyQvCDZELpqhijA/bOEKxHIe+5E=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.190.6 with SMTP id dg6mr2746589qab.25.1328174877673; Thu, 02 Feb 2012 01:27:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.229.211.72 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 01:27:57 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <DDEAE963-E932-4F1E-86E1-D9B706B447D8@laposte.net>
References: <5AAB067C-B5EF-4F75-B844-AFC33A96261C@employees.org> <97737FB3-6A47-4530-BE58-68209022D155@townsley.net> <6E0CF34A-0989-4C69-8094-136EAEC7BBE1@laposte.net> <CAFUBMqX-jQeHRAcc2sPKSk9+d0-G_b88xXg1_u=nPaU2k+-8nA@mail.gmail.com> <DDEAE963-E932-4F1E-86E1-D9B706B447D8@laposte.net>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 18:27:57 +0900
Message-ID: <CAFUBMqU9UoC7+mUaj9zbRigpjqGfr25deaZUc36D=s-von8LdA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Maoke <fibrib@gmail.com>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?B?UultaSBEZXNwculz?= <despres.remi@laposte.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf300fb37fc8897d04b7f7cfe3
Cc: softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] MAP documents - next steps
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 09:28:00 -0000

2012/2/2 Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net>

>
>
> 2. (because) RFC6145 has provided (not thorough but) good enough
> transparency when used in double translation, and accordingly it is NOT
> needed to be updated;
>
>
> Full transparency, based on clear theory, remains AFAIK better than "good
> enough" based on some collected statistic at a given time.
>

as i stated, we want to have better transparency but only if it is not
costly and the solution has no other obvious flaws.


>
> 3. carrying ICMPv4 directly in IPv6 payload will be a harmful idea and
> less feasible.
>
>
> I don't see where you see that ICMPv4 payload tunneled in a mapped header
> isn't easily feasible.
>

not feasible in term of supporting the operation where the single/double
translations are needed simultaneously and are needed to be treated
statelessly.


>
> Stating it is harmful is of course not a proof.
> Discussion on this point can continue with more details in other e-amils
> based on configurations you have in mind.
>

i have proposed a concrete problem rather than a simple statement at least
twice in the past mail dialogues. ;-)

- maoke