Re: [Softwires] [Softwire] draft-ietf-softwire-map-00 does NOTreflect the consensus from the WG

This is a moot argument, as we have seen many protocols (take MPLS for
example) that were proposed to do just X, evolved to do X, Y, Z and
more.

Who would have thought that BGP would be advertising MAC addresses when
BGP was first introduced?

Let's focus on the operational problems solved (or not solved) by any of
our solution sets. I appreciate Ian's email in that light. This will
help us evolve our solution sets and have us spend our time in the right
direction.

Cheers,
Rajiv

> -----Original Message-----
> From: softwires-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org]
On
> Behalf Of Jiang Dong
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 2:34 AM
> To: Satoru Matsushima; Peng Wu
> Cc: Softwires WG; ian.farrer
> Subject: Re: [Softwires] [Softwire] draft-ietf-softwire-map-00 does
> NOTreflect the consensus from the WG
> 
> Hi, Satoru,
> 
> I believe OSPF never abandon its own essence in order to be a super
suite
> and do something very strange to cover the use case which can be
easily and
> clearly done by RIP.
> 
> What's more, MAP is not OSPF, and LW4over6 is not RIP. MAP and
LW4over6
> have their own use case when they are originally designed. MAP is not
> supposed to do the 1:1 mode in the beginning.
> 
> Regards!
> Jiang Dong
> 
> From: Satoru Matsushima <mailto:satoru.matsushima@gmail.com>
> Date: 2012-06-27 12:37
> To: Peng Wu <mailto:pengwu.thu@gmail.com>
> CC: softwires <mailto:softwires@ietf.org> ; ian.farrer
> <mailto:ian.farrer@telekom.de>
> Subject: Re: [Softwires] [Softwire] draft-ietf-softwire-map-00 does
NOT
> reflect the consensus from the WG On 2012/06/27, at 12:36, Peng Wu
wrote:
> 
> >>> 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. ;-)
> >>
> >> That point would be an operational matter for deploying any
> standardized technology. For example, an operator adopt OSPF to use
its
> rich routing feature but the network is small, the operator does just
area 0
> routing, even OSPF allow inter-area routing for scale. Is an another
ospf
> specification needed for 'OSPF Area 0 Only Routing'?
> >
> > Well if I only have a simple network and I uses RIP, you don't make
> > OSPF somehow compatible with RIP(or just include RIP with an OSPF
> > terminology face? I don't know) and say "hey, just use this super
> > suite, don't consider it overloaded, it's for unity!"
> 
> Oh, you don't argue that OSPF covers an use case which is also covered
by
> RIP. So then why are you arguing that an use case of MAP is eventually
same
> with the LW46 use case?
> 
> cheers,
> --satoru
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> Softwires@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires