Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-06.txt

I still have problem to include text to compare two methods. Why not remove
the whole sentence as Ole stated in his email?

Yiu

From:  Ian Farrer <ianfarrer@gmx.com>
Date:  Thursday, March 6, 2014 at 11:27 AM
To:  Wojciech Dec <wdec.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc:  Softwires-wg WG <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject:  Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-06.txt

Here’s the text that Woj mentioned:

"Lightweight 4over6 provides a solution for a hub-and-spoke softwire
architecture only, where the lwAFTR maintains (softwire) state for each
subscriber. [I-D.ietf-softwire-map] offers a means for optimizing the amount
of such state by using algorithmic IPv4 to IPv6 address mappings to create
aggregate rules. This also gives the option of direct meshed IPv4
connectivity between subscribers."

My position on this is that I am fine with the text above, I’m happy with a
wordsmithed version that is mutually agreeable and I am also fine with the
text being removed altogether.

Whichever one can get us past this point is the right answer.

Ian

On 6 Mar 2014, at 10:28, Wojciech Dec <wdec.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> Qi,
> 
> 
> On 5 March 2014 17:17, Qi Sun <sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Woj,
>> 
>> I don't think map is more optimized than lw4over6 when IPv4 and IPv6 are
>> totally decoupled (which is lw4over6 designed to deal with). I would prefer
>> to follow Ole's suggestion at this point, i.e. remove this text.
> 
> The point is that such state optimization is possible, using v4-v6 address
> mapping, which is a characteristic of MAP and mesh mode which the current text
> refers to is its by product.
> 
> We have with Ian a new adequate sentence which fixes things, and I'll let Ian
> post it. It is important to have such text for at least the following reason:
> The solutions have much in common; utilize the same MAP PSID algorithm
> (although with different defaults), encap, etc. They're not thus orthogonal,
> and while some may wish to implement them independently, which is possible
> there is enough commonality to warrant to "pointer text".
> 
> A side note 
> In both lw4over6  and MAP the IPv4 address+PSID are embedded in the IPv6
> address of a CE. So your statement of "totally decoupled" isn't quite
> accurate.
> 
> Cheers,
> Wojciech.
>  
>> 
>> Best Regards,
>> Qi
>> 
>> 
>> On 2014-3-3, at 下午1:47, Wojciech Dec wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Current text in Section 1 reads:
>>> 
>>> Lightweight 4over6 provides a solution for a hub-and-spoke softwire
>>>    architecture only.  It does not offer direct, meshed IPv4
>>>    connectivity between subscribers without packets traversing the AFTR.
>>>    If this type of meshed interconnectivity is required,
>>>    [I-D.ietf-softwire-map
>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-07#ref-I-D.ietf-sof
>>> twire-map> ] provides a suitable solution.
>>>  
>>> Propose changing the above to:
>>> 
>>> Lightweight 4over6 provides a solution for a hub-and-spoke softwire
>>> architecture only,
>>> where the AFTR maintains (softwire) state for each subscriber. A means for
>>> optmizing the amount of such state, as well as the option of meshed IPv4
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> connectivity between subscribers, are features of the [I-D.ietf-softwire-map
>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-07#ref-I-D.ietf-sof
>>> twire-map> ] solution.
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Wojciech.
>>> 
>>>  
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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

Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-lw4over6-06.txt

Attachment: smime.p7s