[Softwires] MAP and 4rd - Feature comparison table -02

[Rémi Després <[e-mail]>]

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 |
  +----+--------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+