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

[Tom Taylor <[e-mail]>]

On 07/03/2014 3:04 AM, Wojciech Dec wrote:
> On 6 March 2014 21:06, Lee, Yiu <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> In the current text, there is no comparison term such as “more optimizing”
>> or “reducing”. These terms are used to comparing two solutions. I echo
>> Qiong and Qi in their replies: this is not necessary to compare two
>> solutions. Similarly, I also think it is not necessary to mention lw4o6 in
>> the MAP-E draft. Besides, please correct me if I am wrong, I remember the
>> WG decision is not to explicitly defining 1:1 in the MAP-E base spec. If
>> the WG wants to work on 1:1 MAP, it will be on a separate draft.
>>
>
> Two responses:
> 1. Given your statement above, and in view of the other text in the lw46
> section that compares lw46 to DS-lite, I would propose that actually all
> text that compares lw46 to other solutions  text be removed. In particular
> the following full paragraph should be removed (which is comparative to
> DS-lite and MAP).
>
> "By relocating
>     the NAPT functionality from the centralized AFTR to the distributed
>     B4s, a number of benefits can be realized:
>
>     o  NAPT44 functionality is already widely supported and used in
>        today's CPE devices.  Lw4o6 uses this to provide private<->public
>        NAPT44, meaning that the service provider does not need a
>        centralized NAT44 function.
>
>     o  The amount of state that must be maintained centrally in the AFTR
>        can be reduced from per-flow to per-subscriber.  This reduces the
>        amount of resources (memory and processing power) necessary in the
>        AFTR.
>
>     o  The reduction of maintained state results in a greatly reduced
>        logging overhead on the service provider.
>
>     Operator's IPv6 and IPv4 addressing architectures remain independent
>     of each other.  Therefore, flexible IPv4/IPv6 addressing schemes can
>     be deployed."


[PTT] Seems reasonable.
...