IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-06.txt

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Tue, 25 February 2014 23:11 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3AA71A02F3 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 15:11:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HhUAZtySkdtm for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 15:11:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from banjo.employees.org (banjo.employees.org [IPv6:2001:1868:205::19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAC5A1A00C2 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 15:11:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-10-61-106-63.cisco.com (173-38-208-169.cisco.com [173.38.208.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by banjo.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CBE7A610F; Tue, 25 Feb 2014 15:11:14 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_BD8552EA-5E05-4B6C-A7AB-885A747CA88C"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <E540B187-E331-4FCD-B962-8FBCB4C945B8@nominum.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 00:11:06 +0100
Message-Id: <F70097FE-5D5A-4F91-AAF9-09F30FB74AF5@employees.org>
References: <20140211075445.17615.61208.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <FD878467-904B-4441-95B4-11D4461A612E@employees.org> <CF237FDE.AACEB%ian.farrer@telekom.de> <CAFFjW4jOBfvnqCV4UH8qt0HA5zZ-35f+q5ZepzjnwGX5_Oj9Gg@mail.gmail.com> <8A1B81989BCFAE44A22B2B86BF2B76318A2CDB8ED2@HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM> <CAFFjW4iP2KqNJFtJPr5rp0tzRwM5TPjaqiSP5r13JqbX46ao7w@mail.gmail.com> <CD1D4FF6-9509-43B4-AFC4-4F1AF99D0C4D@gmx.com> <CAFFjW4ibkj_xpTuXrbYjxkdxD=+qNzapCGPHJwXsZ-k0ZvGg-g@mail.gmail.com> <EBAECD54-9E78-4B07-BC8F-032B585AE0EE@gmail.com> <CAFFjW4hEBF3ZTnGXv+0ncTb981Mr_mdMW04EW=ZqBWFSRE9Q-Q@mail.gmail.com> <530CDF3D.3030908@gmail.com> <E540B187-E331-4FCD-B962-8FBCB4C945B8@nominum.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/4XcMYSRha1D5HfD077QcIMfUiEw
Cc: Softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-06.txt
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 23:11:25 -0000

>> I know this is a political rather than a technical point, but one could sort of reverse the claim and suggest that if 1:1 mode is desired, LW4o6 is the better way to go.
> 
> Indeed, if all one needs is 1:1, one might prefer lw4over6 since it only has the one mode.

I think the point he was trying to make was that it isn't optimal to have two standards documents, specifying mechanisms where one is almost completely encompassed by the other. I say almost, because there might be some divergence in how tunnel endpoint addresses are used, and how fragmentation and ICMP is dealt with.

cheers,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email