Re: [Softwires] [softwire] #25: Maintain or remove MAP1:1 Mode?

[Xing Li <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Ian,

The 1:1 mode is a natural characteristic of MAP and removing it from the 
draft will cause more confusion. Please also see 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xli-softwire-map-testing/
which shows that a MAP CPE can naturally support 1:1 mode.

Regards,

xing


[e-mail] 写道:
> Hi Ole,
>
> Assuming that the Unified CPE draft gets adopted by the workgroup, then
> there needs to be alignment of the different drafts reflecting this.
>
> The unified CPE draft describes how a CPE interprets the presence (or lack
> of) configuration parameters to understand which softwire mode to
> configure. If a MAP CE implemented this (to be a 'unified MAP CE'), then
> it would have two ways of configuring 1:1 mode - via the presence of the
> tunnel endpoint address, an IPv4 address (and optionally a restricted port
> range) and also through a BMR with EA=0.
>
> Two ways of configuring the same function doesn't seem like a good idea,
> even if the underlying mechanism that this function is implemented with is
> different.
>
> So, what I would propose is that EA=0 for MAP is not included as a
> provisioning option in the MAP draft. If the parameters described in the
> unified CPE draft required for 1:1 mode are configured on the unified MAP
> CE, then it should interpret these to mean EA=0 and configure itself
> accordingly.
>
>
> I also think that it would be cleaner if this 1:1 functionality was
> described in a separate document to the current MAP draft. As the 1:1 mode
> functionality of MAP is a big architectural change to the mesh mode
> function, it really needs a lot more than 2 paragraphs in order to
> describe what it is and how it is used.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Ian
>
> On 14/02/2013 11:14, "Ole Troan" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>   
>>> #25: Maintain or remove MAP1:1 Mode?
>>>       
>> OK, so here is a task for whomever thinks MAP 1:1 mode should be removed.
>>
>> - what does "remove MAP 1:1 mode mean"?
>> - please suggest text changes to the mechanism that removes 1:1 mode.
>>
>> given that my opinion is that 1:1 mode is an unremovable part of MAP, the
>> question just doesn't make sense to me.
>>
>> I don't want this issue to be an excuse to block a last call, can we
>> quickly resolve this, and can we agree to drop it if there are no
>> significant contributions within the next week?
>>
>> cheers,
>> Ole
>>
>>
>>     
>>> The WG discussed several times this point (refer to the mailing list
>>> archives).
>>>
>>> MAP1:1 mode is a particular mode which may re-use some of the
>>> provisioning
>>> methods defined for MAP.
>>>
>>> MAP1:1 vs. Lw4o6:
>>> * MAP1:1 is not fully stateless.
>>> * Lw4o6 is a standalone specification which provides the same service as
>>> MAP1:1.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------+-----------------------------------
>>> --
>>> Reporter:                           |      Owner:  draft-ietf-softwire-
>>>  [e-mail]       |  [e-mail]
>>>     Type:  defect                   |     Status:  new
>>> Priority:  major                    |  Milestone:
>>> Component:  map-e                    |    Version:
>>> Severity:  -                        |   Keywords:
>>>
>>> -------------------------------------+-----------------------------------
>>> --
>>>
>>> Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/softwire/trac/ticket/25>
>>> softwire <http://tools.ietf.org/softwire/>
>>>
>>>       
>> _______________________________________________
>> Softwires mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>>     
>
>
>
>