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

[Qiong <[e-mail]>]

Hi Satoru,

Every solution has its solution space with respective application scenarios
as well as pros and cons.
The essence of stateless solution, which follows the stateless motivation
approved by the WG, is to achieve efficient address mapping by algorithmic
embedding part of IPv4 address+port set into IPv6 address/prefix, while the
essence of stateful solution is to maintain the subscriber-based state
on-demand. IPv4 address and IPv6 address is not coupled, and there is no
requirement on IPv6 addressing format. It is twisty to mix them together in
one document as in the current draft-ietf-softwire-map. It is not clear for
vendors to implement and for operators to deploy, and will lose the
features for both.

I'm not saying I'm against the work of stateless solutions, but it is
really not fair to just extend one solution arbitrarily to cover another
one without the permission from the WG and the authors. In particular,
lightweight 4over6 is a collaborative work of 15 co-authors for more than
one and a half years, including operators from China Telecom, Tsinghua,
Comcast, France telecom, Deutsche Telekom, Bouygues Telecom, etc., and also
the vendors from Huawei, Juniper and Cisco.

Our WG or DT has never reached the consensus to have one unified document
for both stateful and stateless sotluion. And the motivation draft has
never been extended to include the stateful features as well. So unless we
reach the consensus first in the WG, we can then move forward with this
document.

Best wishes

On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Satoru Matsushima <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Qiong,
>
> I'm disagree with your opinion.
>
> 1. Recent changes in draft-ietf-softwire-map-00 has been discussed in the
> DT.
> 2. MAP just covers so called '1:1 mode' with most granular mapping rule
> for CEs provisioning, which is as one of its characteristics.
> 3. The motivation draft does not restrict that as you stated, just
> 'assumed', it's neither 'MUST' nor 'SHOULD'.
>
> Best regards,
> --satoru
>
>
> On 2012/06/24, at 14:35, Qiong wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > As we all know, once an individual draft is adopted as a WG draft, it is
> owned by the whole WG, rather than just the editors. Just as Remi said, the
> normal procedure to follow is to reach WG consensus _before_ posting a
> newly edited version.
> >
> > From draft-mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port-03 to
> draft-ietf-softwire-map-00, there are several changes between them. In
> particular, the newly introduced "1:1 mode", which decouples IPv4 and IPv6
> addressing, has never been discussed openly in the WG mailing list, or even
> in the MAP design team either.
> >
> > Actually, this "1:1 mode" is against the stateless-4v6-motivation draft.
> The motivation draft has clearly defines the "Stateless 4/6 solution" as
> follows:
> >
> > Stateless 4/6 solution denotes a solution which does not require any
> per-user state (see Section 2.3 of [RFC1958]) to be maintained by any IP
> address sharing function in the Service Provider's network. This category
> of solutions assumes a dependency between an IPv6 prefix and IPv4 address.
> >
> > AFAIK what the WG has adopted MAP related draft is
> draft-mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port-03, NOT
> draft-ietf-softwire-map-00. And the stateless solution should “response to
> the solution motivation document” according to the Softwire charter. That
> means draft-ietf-softwire-map-00 IS NOT QUALIFIED to be a WG draft.
> >
> > We can all recall that our softwire WG has worked on stateless solutions
> for more than one and a half years, and we have achieved a lot of work
> which has been documented in charter, stateless motivation, 4rd-varients,
> MAP-03, etc. AFAIK all the authors have kept the basic "stateless"
> principle and the MAP design team is also working on it together to find a
> better algorithm, address format, etc. So it is really not appropriate to
> make such changes when MAP is adopted as a WG item in such a short time.
> >
> > From this perspective, draft-ietf-softwire-map-00 can only be regarded
> as draft-XX-softwire-mapping-address-and-port-04. It is not even the output
> of MAP design team.
> >
> > Best wishes
> >
> > ==============================================
> > Qiong Sun
> > China Telecom Beijing Research Institude
> >
> >
> > Open source code:
> > lightweight 4over6: http://sourceforge.net/projects/laft6/
> > PCP-natcoord: http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcpportsetdemo/
> > ===============================================
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Softwires mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > 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/ *
===============================================