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

[Qi Sun <[e-mail]>]

Hi Satoru,

Inline, please ;)

Qi Sun

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Satoru Matsushima <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 2012/06/27, at 18:20, Qi Sun wrote:
>
> > Hi Satoru,
> >
> > Please see inline.
> >
> > BTW, my name is Qi :)
> >
>
> Agh! I'm so sorry!
>
> >
> > [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.
> >
>
> Ah, ok.
>
> > >  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.
>
> If it is true, LW46 should be a stateless solution.
>
> [Qi] DHCPv4 over IPv6 is a provisioning method. And it's about the public
IPv4 address allocation, NOT about IPv4 address and IPv6 address mapping.
So there is no state. Please read the draft of DHCPv4 over IPv6 for
clarification.
LW4over6 needs to maintain the binding table on TC. That's stateful.
Actually in MAP 1:1 mode there will be a binding table right? Here comes
the question: what will you do if there are new comers or some users
leaving the network?




> cheers,
> --satoru