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

[Peng Wu <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Satoru Matsushima
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Peng,
>
> On 2012/06/25, at 17:37, Peng Wu wrote:
>
>>> Please find it out on page 14 from following url:
>>>
>>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/softwire-2.pdf
>>
>> I think that's not what Alain meant. If you look back and forth a bit,
>> you can see that:
>> B1 stands for per-subscriber stateufl/mapping/binding...
>> B2 stand for stateless Hub & Spoke (in MAP case, FMRs not provisoned to CE)
>> B3 stand for stateless Mesh (in MAP case, FMRs provisoned to CE)
>> The confusion comes from the use of per-­subscriber in the slides.
>> It's not the sementic we took in this thread.
>
> What's the differences from the semantics in this thread?
> Since per-subscriber mapping operation should naturally be a hub-and-spoke means, it is just a case of stateless solution operation.

The discussion in this thread falls in the case of B1. Not the slide
you refered to (slide 14) at all.
I sincely suggest you look into the slides again, or look at my
summary in last mail, copied as following
=============================================
B1 stands for per-subscriber stateufl/mapping/binding...
B2 stand for stateless Hub & Spoke (in MAP case, FMRs not provisoned to CE)
B3 stand for stateless Mesh (in MAP case, FMRs provisoned to CE)
=============================================

>
> cheers,
> --satoru