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

[Qi Sun <[e-mail]>]

Hi Satoru,

Please see inline.

BTW, my name is Qi :)

Qi Sun


On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Satoru Matsushima <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Qiong,
>
> On 2012/06/27, at 16:54, Qi Sun wrote:
>
> > Hi Satoru,
> >
> > Please see inline.
> >
> > Qi Sun
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Satoru Matsushima <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > On 2012/06/27, at 15:38, Peng Wu wrote:
> >
> > >> 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?
> > > I'm clearly saying they have different use cases, but that's not the
> > > point. Let me repeat. If I want RIP, you cannot just place RIP into
> > > OSPF,
> >
> > Agree on that it's not what I'm intended to. MAP thus never put DHCPv4
> over IPv6, nor PCP into its specification. Please keep your mind in peace.
> >
> > [Qi] That's not what the thread is discussing. Please do not try to
> change the topic.
> >
>
> Not intended.
>
> > > put an OSPF "face" on it, and force me to use the OSPF "suite"
> > > while the essence of the protocol I'm using is still RIP.
> >
> > Not to force, MAP uses its MAP protocol to an use case which also could
> be covered by LW46's DHCPv4 over IPv6, or PCP. Correct?
> >
> > [Qi] Do you mean MAP can do all these things WITHOUT ANY help from other
> documents, saying DHCPv6 options?
>
> Ah, ok. MAP define mapping rule as its protocol. DHCPv6 is a bearer of
> mapping rules.
>

[Qi]  What we are discussing is on the essence of MAP where 1:1 mode is
intended to import binding table on BR , and on whether the ietf-map-00 is
qualified as a WG draft without consensus of the softwire WG. Rather than
the provisioning methods, saying DHCPv4 over IPv6 or DHCPv6 options.

>
> >  All those mechanisms like DHCPv4 over IPv6 or PCP are not the essence
> of the protocol but provisioning method for LW4over6.
> > Actually, based on what you have said, I can get that the "new" MAP can
> achieve its NEW added 1:1 mode with the help of DHCPv4 over IPv6 for IPv4
> address allocation. Why don't you use it, which has been a DHC WG draft?
> >
>
> These are not possible because they require state in BR so that it's LW46
> use case, right? MAP define mapping rule in stateless manner.
>

[Qi] As a provisioning method, DHCPv4 over IPv6 DOES NOT require any state
in TC/BR. Please check the draft. As a result, this is not about stateful
or stateless. There is no conflict between the binding table on BR and the
DHCPv4 over IPv6 process.


> cheers,
> --satoru