Re: [Softwires] MAP and 4rd - Feature comparison table

Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net> Thu, 09 February 2012 09:39 UTC

Return-Path: <despres.remi@laposte.net>
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 9CC9621F86C6 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 01:39:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.804
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.804 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.145, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 KsJ2wZ2OygBV for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 01:39:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp24.services.sfr.fr (smtp24.services.sfr.fr [93.17.128.82]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6ED521F86C3 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 01:39:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from filter.sfr.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by msfrf2408.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 4A2AF7000192; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:39:55 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.0.21] (per92-10-88-166-221-144.fbx.proxad.net [88.166.221.144]) by msfrf2408.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 3221B700017F; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:39:54 +0100 (CET)
X-SFR-UUID: 20120209093954205.3221B700017F@msfrf2408.sfr.fr
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net>
In-Reply-To: <29D1D1C9-CC1E-4F92-81BC-81ECC3402C47@laposte.net>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:39:53 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <63E186D0-B49E-4AB4-93C1-C6C7412519E8@laposte.net>
References: <B140D6B2-1B19-43D7-9B63-6BEA83CEB164@juniper.net> <3AAD65F3-5169-49B7-9698-E820EF419B35@employees.org> <171F46DF-2C26-48A8-BE2D-D859C9DE43E9@laposte.net> <8A238676-62B7-4A8B-8986-B24A964CFD9B@juniper.net> <29D1D1C9-CC1E-4F92-81BC-81ECC3402C47@laposte.net>
To: Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-sfr-mailing: LEGIT
Cc: Softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>, Yong Cui <cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn>, Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] MAP and 4rd - Feature comparison table
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, 09 Feb 2012 09:39:57 -0000

New version, after a discussion with Ole:

   +----+--------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+
   |    | Feature (based on CURRENT drafts)    | MAP | MAP | 4rd | 4rd |
   |    |                                      |  -T |  -E |  -H |  -E |
   +----+--------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+
   |  1 | Full Transparency to IPv4 DF bit     |  N  |  Y  |  Y  |  Y  |
   |    |                                      |     |     |     |     |
   |  2 | ISP can impose a Tunnel traffic      |  N  |  Y  |  Y  |  Y  |
   |    | class                                |     |     |     |     |
   |    |                                      |     |     |     |     |
   |  3 | Possible support of CEs behind       |  N  |  N  |  Y  |  Y  |
   |    | third-party CPEs                     |     |     |     |     |
   |    |                                      |     |     |     |     |
   |  4 | IPv6 port-based ACLs work for IPv4   |  Y  |  N  |  Y  |  N  |
   |    | packets                              |     |     |     |     |
   |    |                                      |     |     |     |     |
   |  5 | IPv6 web caches work for IPv4        |  Y  |  N  |  Y  |  N  |
   |    | packets                              |     |     |     |     |
   |    |                                      |     |     |     |     |
   |  6 | No constraint on host addresses or   |  N  |  N  |  Y  |  Y  |
   |    | subnet prefixes in CE sites (V-octet |     |     |     |     |
   |    | format)                              |     |     |     |     |
   |    |                                      |     |     |     |     |
   |  7 | Number of excluded ports is flexible |  Y  |  Y  |  N  |  N  |
   |    | (GMA algorithm, 2 parameters)        |     |     |     |     |
   |    |                                      |     |     |     |     |
   |  8 | Possible migration from DS routing   |  N  |  N  |  Y  |  Y  |
   |    | to IPv6-only routing without         |     |     |     |     |
   |    | changing CE addresses and/or         |     |     |     |     |
   |    | prefixes (DMR may apply to CEs)      |     |     |     |     |
   |    |                                      |     |     |     |     |
   |  9 | BRs need no change for any new       |  N  |  N  |  Y  |  Y  |
   |    | protocol having ports at their usual |     |     |     |     |
   |    | place and TCP-like checksum          |     |     |     |     |
   |    | (checksum neutrality)                |     |     |     |     |
   |    |                                      |     |     |     |     |
   | 10 | IPv4-options supported               |  N  |  Y  |  N  |  N  |
   |    |                                      |     |     |     |     |
   | 11 | Datagram reassembly avoided in BRs   |  N  |  N  |  Y  |  Y  |
   |    |                                      |     |     |     |     |
   | 12 | Packet IDs from shared-address CEs   |  N  |  Y  |  Y  |  Y  |
   |    | cannot be confused in destinations   |     |     |     |     |
   |    |                                      |     |     |     |     |
   | 13 | The number of rules CEs must be able |  N  |  N  |  Y  |  Y  |
   |    | to support is defined                |     |     |     |     |
   |    |                                      |     |     |     |     |
   | 14 | Minimum IP header length             |  40 |  60 |  48 |  60 |
   +----+--------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+