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

[Maoke <[e-mail]>]

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. ;-)

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.

cheers,
maoke


>
> cheers,
> --satoru
>
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>