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

["Joel M. Halpern" <[e-mail]>]

This appears to mix different kinds of state.
In particular, with regard to state in network resident boxes, there can be:
General state covering all subscribers;
Per subscriber state provisioned state;
Per subscriber dynamic, but not flow specific state;
per flow state.

All are state.
The first is clearly permitted.
The fourth is clearly not permitted in a "stateless" solution.
Some descriptions of "stateless" have allowed for the middle two, while 
others have prohibited it.  I have no opinion on what the WG "agreement" 
is on the scoping.  But we need to be careful about what we mean about 
"state".

Yours,
Joel

On 6/25/2012 2:51 AM, Qi Sun wrote:
> Hi Satoru,
> In MAP 1:1 mode, if there are 10000000 subscribers, there would be
> 10000000 MAP domains which a BR has to manage. I think that will create
> a huge mapping table on the BR, which is called 'state' that stateful
> solutions deal with.
> Best Regards!
> Qi Sun