Re: [Softwires] [softwire] #25: Maintain or remove MAP1:1 Mode?

On 2013/02/15, at 18:34, Xing Li <xing@cernet.edu.cn> wrote:

> Hi, Ian,
> 
> The 1:1 mode is a natural characteristic of MAP and removing it from the draft will cause more confusion. Please also see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xli-softwire-map-testing/
> which shows that a MAP CPE can naturally support 1:1 mode.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> xing
> 

ASAMAP too.

cheers,
--satoru

> 
> ian.farrer@telekom.de 写道:
>> Hi Ole,
>> 
>> Assuming that the Unified CPE draft gets adopted by the workgroup, then
>> there needs to be alignment of the different drafts reflecting this.
>> 
>> The unified CPE draft describes how a CPE interprets the presence (or lack
>> of) configuration parameters to understand which softwire mode to
>> configure. If a MAP CE implemented this (to be a 'unified MAP CE'), then
>> it would have two ways of configuring 1:1 mode - via the presence of the
>> tunnel endpoint address, an IPv4 address (and optionally a restricted port
>> range) and also through a BMR with EA=0.
>> 
>> Two ways of configuring the same function doesn't seem like a good idea,
>> even if the underlying mechanism that this function is implemented with is
>> different.
>> 
>> So, what I would propose is that EA=0 for MAP is not included as a
>> provisioning option in the MAP draft. If the parameters described in the
>> unified CPE draft required for 1:1 mode are configured on the unified MAP
>> CE, then it should interpret these to mean EA=0 and configure itself
>> accordingly.
>> 
>> 
>> I also think that it would be cleaner if this 1:1 functionality was
>> described in a separate document to the current MAP draft. As the 1:1 mode
>> functionality of MAP is a big architectural change to the mesh mode
>> function, it really needs a lot more than 2 paragraphs in order to
>> describe what it is and how it is used.
>> 
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Ian
>> 
>> On 14/02/2013 11:14, "Ole Troan" <ot@cisco.com> wrote:
>> 
>>  
>>>> #25: Maintain or remove MAP1:1 Mode?
>>>>      
>>> OK, so here is a task for whomever thinks MAP 1:1 mode should be removed.
>>> 
>>> - what does "remove MAP 1:1 mode mean"?
>>> - please suggest text changes to the mechanism that removes 1:1 mode.
>>> 
>>> given that my opinion is that 1:1 mode is an unremovable part of MAP, the
>>> question just doesn't make sense to me.
>>> 
>>> I don't want this issue to be an excuse to block a last call, can we
>>> quickly resolve this, and can we agree to drop it if there are no
>>> significant contributions within the next week?
>>> 
>>> cheers,
>>> Ole
>>> 
>>> 
>>>    
>>>> The WG discussed several times this point (refer to the mailing list
>>>> archives).
>>>> 
>>>> MAP1:1 mode is a particular mode which may re-use some of the
>>>> provisioning
>>>> methods defined for MAP.
>>>> 
>>>> MAP1:1 vs. Lw4o6:
>>>> * MAP1:1 is not fully stateless.
>>>> * Lw4o6 is a standalone specification which provides the same service as
>>>> MAP1:1.
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> 
>>>> -------------------------------------+-----------------------------------
>>>> --
>>>> Reporter:                           |      Owner:  draft-ietf-softwire-
>>>> mohamed.boucadair@orange.com       |  map@tools.ietf.org
>>>>    Type:  defect                   |     Status:  new
>>>> Priority:  major                    |  Milestone:
>>>> Component:  map-e                    |    Version:
>>>> Severity:  -                        |   Keywords:
>>>> 
>>>> -------------------------------------+-----------------------------------
>>>> --
>>>> 
>>>> Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/softwire/trac/ticket/25>
>>>> softwire <http://tools.ietf.org/softwire/>
>>>> 
>>>>      
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Softwires mailing list
>>> Softwires@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>>>    
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> Softwires@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires