Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-06.txt

[Wojciech Dec <[e-mail]>]

Would you be more comfortable with "reducing"?


On 6 March 2014 16:17, Yuchi Chen <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Ian,
>
> If we decided to keep the text, I suggest to remove the "offers a means
> for optimizing" part. It may not be a good idea to teach operators what
> should be "optimize".
>
> What I mostly suggest is to remove the entire text.
>
> Best regards!
> --------------
> Yuchi Chen
>
> On 2014-03-06, 19:27, "Ian Farrer" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >Here’s the text that Woj mentioned:
> >
> >"Lightweight 4over6 provides a solution for a hub-and-spoke softwire
> architecture only, where the lwAFTR maintains (softwire) state for each
> subscriber. [I-D.ietf-softwire-map] offers a means for optimizing the
> amount of such state by using algorithmic IPv4 to IPv6 address mappings to
> create aggregate rules. This also gives the option of direct meshed IPv4
> connectivity between subscribers."
> >
> >My position on this is that I am fine with the text above, I’m happy with
> a wordsmithed version that is mutually agreeable and I am also fine with
> the text being removed altogether.
> >
> >Whichever one can get us past this point is the right answer.
> >
> >Ian
> >
> >On 6 Mar 2014, at 10:28, Wojciech Dec <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >> Qi,
> >>
> >>
> >> On 5 March 2014 17:17, Qi Sun <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Woj,
> >>
> >> I don't think map is more optimized than lw4over6 when IPv4 and IPv6
> are totally decoupled (which is lw4over6 designed to deal with). I would
> prefer to follow Ole's suggestion at this point, i.e. remove this text.
> >>
> >> The point is that such state optimization is possible, using v4-v6
> address mapping, which is a characteristic of MAP and mesh mode which the
> current text refers to is its by product.
> >>
> >> We have with Ian a new adequate sentence which fixes things, and I'll
> let Ian post it. It is important to have such text for at least the
> following reason:
> >> The solutions have much in common; utilize the same MAP PSID algorithm
> (although with different defaults), encap, etc. They're not thus
> orthogonal, and while some may wish to implement them independently, which
> is possible there is enough commonality to warrant to "pointer text".
> >>
> >> A side note
> >> In both lw4over6  and MAP the IPv4 address+PSID are embedded in the
> IPv6 address of a CE. So your statement of "totally decoupled" isn't quite
> accurate.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Wojciech.
> >>
> >>
> >> Best Regards,
> >> Qi
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2014-3-3, at 下午1:47, Wojciech Dec wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Current text in Section 1 reads:
> >>>
> >>> Lightweight 4over6 provides a solution for a hub-and-spoke softwire
> >>>    architecture only.  It does not offer direct, meshed IPv4
> >>>    connectivity between subscribers without packets traversing the
> AFTR.
> >>>    If this type of meshed interconnectivity is required,
> >>>    [I-D.ietf-softwire-map] provides a suitable solution.
> >>>
> >>> Propose changing the above to:
> >>>
> >>> Lightweight 4over6 provides a solution for a hub-and-spoke softwire
> architecture only,
> >>> where the AFTR maintains (softwire) state for each subscriber. A means
> for
> >>> optmizing the amount of such state, as well as the option of meshed
> IPv4
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> connectivity between subscribers, are features of the
> [I-D.ietf-softwire-map] solution.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Wojciech.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Softwires mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Softwires mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
> >
> >
>