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

["Jiang Dong" <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Satoru,

see in lines.

Regards!
Jiang Dong

From: Satoru Matsushima
Date: 2012-06-25 17:46
To: Peng Wu
CC: softwires; Yong Cui
Subject: Re: [Softwires] [Softwire] draft-ietf-softwire-map-00 does NOT reflect the consensus from the WG
Hi Peng,

On 2012/06/25, at 18:34, Peng Wu wrote:

>> Let's think that a CE provisioned with following BMR comes from MAP DHCPv6 options.
>> 
>> BMR:
>>  o Rule-ipv6-prefix  : {exact matched with CE's delegated prefix}
>>  o Rule-ipv4-prefix  : x.x.x.x/32
>>  o EA-length         : 0
>>  o Port-param option : {PSID/length}
>> 
>> This BMR could be a LW46 provisioning means.
> 
> Again, all the information needed is the IPv4 address and port set.
> 
> 1) The item like rule-ipv6-prefix is not needed at all.
> 2) Port set or PSID still needs extra provisioning (while in regular
> MAP it's embedded in IPv6 address)
> 
> So why make it so difficult and obscure

Not difficult, easy business for CE which implemented MAP. Other difficulty in operator side in particular provisioning complex, that should be same with LW46. It also makes to complete MAP spec in the ea-len zero case.

[DJ] In this case, for the MAP draft, each CE only need to know the IPv6 address of BR, and BR needs mapping rules for every CE; for the lightweight4over6, which has been persistently developed for about two years by a large number of experts, each TI also need to know the IPv6 address of TC, and TC needs to maintain the per-subscriber mapping for each TI. I really cannot find what's the difference. Could you please tell me how "stateless" comes in the 1:1 mode of MAP draft? And if the number of mapping rules is proportional to the number of subscribers, I will then confused by the meaning of stateless.
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires