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

[Qiong <[e-mail]>]

Agree with Ian.

MAP is designed and optimized for algorithmatic address mapping, but not
for per-subscriber rule mapping. Actually, the more you would like to
solve, more complicated it will become.

I will certainly not buy MAP for per-subscriber case when MAP-T, MAP-E,
map-dhcp all becomes useless or not optimized. And I will not deploy
per-subscriber stateful and stateless solutions at the same.

So I encourage two seperated approaches optimized for different scenarios.
It will be good for both.

Do we really all forget about the "KISS" principle ?

Best wishes
Qiong

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Wojciech Dec <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> Well, a couple of observations:
> A) MAP allows you to optimize complexity in not having to deal with per
> subscriber rules in cases where this is feasible.
> B) You're referring to data representation as an operational problem,
> which if so, actually applies to any solution incl LW46 that transmits
> port-range info to a client. I.e. "Whatever support staff" needs to be
> schooled to use some logic to glean useful port information from the data
> sent to a client
> C) It is very easy to represent MAP data as port range info on routers,
> tools, etc.
>
> -Woj.
>
>
>>
>> cheers,
>>  --satoru
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Softwires mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/ *
===============================================