Re: [Softwires] [Softwire] draft-ietf-softwire-map-00 does NOT reflect the consensus from the WG

[Qiong <[e-mail]>]

Exactly. We will always choose the technique for its appropriate scenario.

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Peng Wu <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Satoru Matsushima
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Hi Maoke,
> >
> > On 2012/06/27, at 10:48, Maoke wrote:
> >
> >> dear Satoru,
> >>
> >> 2012/6/26 Satoru Matsushima <[e-mail]>
> >> On 2012/06/27, at 0:11, Qiong wrote:
> >>
> >> > Agree with Ian.
> >> >
> >> > MAP is designed and optimized for algorithmatic address mapping, but
> not for per-subscriber rule mapping. Actually, the more you would like to
> solve, more complicated it will become.
> >> >
> >> > I will certainly not buy MAP for per-subscriber case when MAP-T,
> MAP-E, map-dhcp all becomes useless or not optimized. And I will not deploy
> per-subscriber stateful and stateless solutions at the same.
> >> >
> >> > So I encourage two seperated approaches optimized for different
> scenarios. It will be good for both.
> >> >
> >> > Do we really all forget about the "KISS" principle ?
> >>
> >> Not quite.
> >> I believe that the most motivate to start this work in the wg has
> destined MAP to be 'multi-protocol socket v2.0' that's what the former wg
> chair wished to. Do you remember that?
> >>
> >> i like the philosophy of "multi-protocol socket". however, i moderately
> doubt the "multi-protocol socket v2.0" is a perfect plan for every cases.
> in a quite good hotel, we see typically one 'multi-protocol socket' while a
> lot of local-standard sockets. i never think it will make me happy if i see
> every socket in my room is *multi-protocol*, occupying much spaces and
> quite noticeable on the walls. we need one to deploy somewhere not the only
> one type to deploy anywhere. ;-)
> >
> > That point would be an operational matter for deploying any standardized
> technology. For example, an operator adopt OSPF to use its rich routing
> feature but the network is small, the operator does just area 0 routing,
> even OSPF allow inter-area routing for scale. Is an another ospf
> specification needed for 'OSPF Area 0 Only Routing'?
>
> Well if I only have a simple network and I uses RIP, you don't make
> OSPF somehow compatible with RIP(or just include RIP with an OSPF
> terminology face? I don't know) and say "hey, just use this super
> suite, don't consider it overloaded, it's for unity!"
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> therefore i understand the motivation of the wg is making a unified
> solution covering both encapsulation and translation in the framework of
> stateless, WITHOUT the exclusiveness against other solutions, more
> specifically suitable for a certain use case.
> >>
> >
> > Studying each significant use case is quite important. I agree on that
> point with no doubt. However, is it IETF business for each use case
> specification?
> >
> > cheers,
> > --satoru
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Softwires mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>



-- 
==============================================
Qiong Sun
China Telecom Beijing Research Institude


Open source code:
lightweight 4over6: *http://sourceforge.net/projects/laft6/*
PCP-natcoord:* http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcpportsetdemo/ *
===============================================