IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Qiong <bingxuere@gmail.com> Wed, 27 June 2012 07:53 UTC

Return-Path: <bingxuere@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 411B021F8648 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:53:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.434
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.434 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.164, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QQ8-DYCe3uOp for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:53:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f53.google.com (mail-yw0-f53.google.com [209.85.213.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B8EC21F8645 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:53:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yhp26 with SMTP id 26so1053108yhp.26 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:53:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=uM9WtlsvLnsB1UyneCtW6c8IG7zw3rSiOJN91p0gyB0=; b=nTt/zZn/VTjuT2MmShZID5+Jx/nt9idW2gP/e2i5vmkFUuAb/go77Gcs/kygQ5KacR 5RvR5cKv/DYPKsBeHWW8BsHZQBDR9EZ13HhsW940OGTqhjiYwG10IstoE4f9Ye3AssS+ 1s6YEtVkB5f50cgH1rC7Ri9pvJUGa6ULpddNFcWe7Vn/FUegDOjGcNCSGI1hY1xxPfH5 yrjOR2nzthdztYzHJ4LA1nI6Bi/yl8d5ZiFzDHMYZxP7dF7o7ocnTgnMgAD8YtY03lMZ 7e451QfghYcjh6lLTQHelQFrqOwPSpeWZQSPK+cP7yxl56W7CXCJQ6kXbi18GhapL3sU q0AQ==
Received: by 10.50.188.131 with SMTP id ga3mr621011igc.54.1340783613435; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:53:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.46.6 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:52:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAC16W0C=2AsDwJ0ZEGnenDoq7SmY8fO3GpJKxLyWcV5easy64w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CC0F2D82.285F4%ian.farrer@telekom.de> <CAFFjW4ireDBzacCFDYgh3kn3+MXx1=m3Kab6Wp7TFwnHeyfwDw@mail.gmail.com> <CAH3bfADW1LN5nr1trd+Hu0tu4R3cHNEcx5yppN4p4Rh1bHaq1w@mail.gmail.com> <04DCBF0D-2B31-42E8-A363-22656FBAF447@gmail.com> <CAFUBMqURHk_AJfaTmx0vVJVuVFL0QaKZp15p=fZXX+Ftpf50cg@mail.gmail.com> <C41CE132-8C42-4898-B2DF-43BBFAE89515@gmail.com> <CAC16W0Ds-aRLMbyVdwifA3wjJwHuKOKjhkDLxxRm+X68wOnv7A@mail.gmail.com> <CBD94C41-5A67-4DDC-BDE4-514C7F186E8B@gmail.com> <CAC16W0CUWhwLD8NFGxsCHWGUtRatpSUvOfFAerriUbtuQLezcA@mail.gmail.com> <1E6988FF-BFE6-4DA4-A7F6-B8BC4205967F@gmail.com> <CAC16W0C=2AsDwJ0ZEGnenDoq7SmY8fO3GpJKxLyWcV5easy64w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Qiong <bingxuere@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:52:53 +0800
Message-ID: <CAH3bfACBHJqURd51AFhZ44E9rECuJaxwDcmi+j-K=Y40pUY1Yw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peng Wu <pengwu.thu@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="14dae9341157ffe0dc04c36f82b5"
Cc: softwires@ietf.org, ian.farrer@telekom.de
Subject: Re: [Softwires] [Softwire] draft-ietf-softwire-map-00 does NOT reflect the consensus from the WG
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 07:53:43 -0000

Yes. And in ietf-map section1, it declares:

The residual IPv4 over IPv6 mechanisms must be capable of algorithmically
map between an IPv4 prefix, IPv4 address or a shared IPv4 address and an
IPv6 address

It is not consistent with EA-bit=0 case.

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Peng Wu <pengwu.thu@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Satoru Matsushima
> <satoru.matsushima@gmail.com> 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.
> >
> >> 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?
> >
> Yes, there are mutliple choices for the provisioning protocol. But the
> essence here is 1.no v4-v6 address coupling, and thereby 2.explicitly
> provisoin the v4 address and port set. I would say the ORIGINAL MAP
> fits with neither points here.
>
> BTW,  if I may, my suggestion on MAP to deal with the situation of EA
> bit=0 is, just say in this case there is no algorithmic address
> mapping so it's not consistent with general case or the original
> motivation, and thereby not covered. I believe it is not the main
> scenario you want to cover and this way you keep MAP clean.
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> Softwires@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>



-- 
==============================================
Qiong Sun
China Telecom Beijing Research Institude


Open source code:
lightweight 4over6: *http://sourceforge.net/projects/laft6/*
PCP-natcoord:* http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcpportsetdemo/ *
===============================================

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email