[Softwires] MAP and 4rd - Feature comparison table

Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net> Wed, 08 February 2012 10:10 UTC

Return-Path: <despres.remi@laposte.net>
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 E6AAA21F852B for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 02:10:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.849
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.849 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 hmWxzJ81T8WH for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 02:10:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp21.services.sfr.fr (smtp21.services.sfr.fr [93.17.128.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A306021F855B for <softwires@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 02:10:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from filter.sfr.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by msfrf2106.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 25D3A700005E; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 11:10:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.0.21] (per92-10-88-166-221-144.fbx.proxad.net [88.166.221.144]) by msfrf2106.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 13D2170000A4; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 11:10:24 +0100 (CET)
X-SFR-UUID: 20120208101025813.13D2170000A4@msfrf2106.sfr.fr
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9mi_Despr=E9s?= <despres.remi@laposte.net>
In-Reply-To: <8A238676-62B7-4A8B-8986-B24A964CFD9B@juniper.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 11:10:24 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <29D1D1C9-CC1E-4F92-81BC-81ECC3402C47@laposte.net>
References: <B140D6B2-1B19-43D7-9B63-6BEA83CEB164@juniper.net> <3AAD65F3-5169-49B7-9698-E820EF419B35@employees.org> <171F46DF-2C26-48A8-BE2D-D859C9DE43E9@laposte.net> <8A238676-62B7-4A8B-8986-B24A964CFD9B@juniper.net>
To: Alain Durand <adurand@juniper.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-sfr-mailing: LEGIT
Cc: Softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>, Yong Cui <cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn>, Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Subject: [Softwires] MAP and 4rd - Feature comparison table
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, 08 Feb 2012 10:10:30 -0000

Le 2012-02-02 à 18:35, Alain Durand a écrit :

> Please, Remi, do build such a table! That would be very useful.

Here is what I got:

   +----+--------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+
   |    | Feature                              | MAP | 4rd | MAP | 4rd |
   |    |                                      |  -T |  -H |  -E |  -E |
   +----+--------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+
   |  1 | Full Transparency to IPv4 DF bit     |  N  |  Y  |  Y  |  Y  |
   |    |                                      |     |     |     |     |
   |  2 | ISP can impose a Tunnel traffic      |  N  |  Y  |  Y  |  Y  |
   |    | class                                |     |     |     |     |
   |    |                                      |     |     |     |     |
   |  3 | IPv6 port-based ACLs work for IPv4   |  Y  |  Y  |  N  |  N  |
   |    | packets                              |     |     |     |     |
   |    |                                      |     |     |     |     |
   |  4 | IPv6 web caches work for IPv4        |  Y  |  Y  |  N  |  N  |
   |    | packets                              |     |     |     |     |
   |    |                                      |     |     |     |     |
   |  5 | No constraint on subnet prefixes in  |  N  |  Y  |  N  |  Y  |
   |    | CE sites (V-octet format)            |     |     |     |     |
   |    |                                      |     |     |     |     |
   |  6 | Number of excluded ports is flexible |  Y  |  N  |  Y  |  N  |
   |    | (GMA algorithm, 2 parameters)        |     |     |     |     |
   |    |                                      |     |     |     |     |
   |  7 | Migration from DS routing to         |  N  |  Y  |  N  |  Y  |
   |    | IPv6-only is possible without        |     |     |     |     |
   |    | changing CE addresses and/or         |     |     |     |     |
   |    | prefixes (DMR may apply to CEs)      |     |     |     |     |
   |    |                                      |     |     |     |     |
   |  8 | Automatic support of all protocols   |  N  |  Y  |  N  |  Y  |
   |    | having ports at their usual place    |     |     |     |     |
   |    | and a TCP-like checksum anywhere     |     |     |     |     |
   |    | (checksum neutrality)                |     |     |     |     |
   |    |                                      |     |     |     |     |
   |  9 | IPv4-options supported               |  N  |  N  |  Y  |  Y  |
   |    |                                      |     |     |     | (1) |
   |    |                                      |     |     |     |     |
   | 10 | Datagram reassembly avoided in BRs   |  N  |  Y  |  N  |  Y  |
   |    |                                      | (2) |     | (2) |     |
   |    |                                      |     |     |     |     |
   | 11 | Packet IDs from shared-address CEs   |  N  |  Y  |  Y  |  Y  |
   |    | cannot be confused in destinations   | (2) |     |     |     |
   +----+--------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+

   (1) Not in draft yet, but decided to be added (trivial to do)
   (2) Not in draft, but could be added if decided



> On Feb 2, 2012, at 10:56 AM, "Rémi Després" <despres.remi@laposte.net> wrote:
> ...
>> A 4 columns table would be ideal. Also, It could have a sign identifying points that are N in current drafts, but  could easily become Y if the final consensus is that they are worth the additional complexity.
>> I can work on it if you are interested.