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

[Wojciech Dec <[e-mail]>]

Some points for the record:

* lightweight 4over6 is not a WG draft nor does it have a monopoly on the
shape of final solutions.

* Discussion on what lw 4over6 actually solves is still expected.

* Nothing in the stateless solution (eg MAP) says that they have to be used
with stateful elements, or at what scale they are to be deployed. The fact
MAP devices can be used with stateful elements is a basic fact deriving
from the use of common IPv6 data-planes.

* Lw 4over6 is co-authored by one of the current and also one of the past
WG chairs...

-Woj.

On 24 June 2012 17:13, Qiong <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Satoru,
>
> Every solution has its solution space with respective application
> scenarios as well as pros and cons.
> The essence of stateless solution, which follows the stateless motivation
> approved by the WG, is to achieve efficient address mapping by algorithmic
> embedding part of IPv4 address+port set into IPv6 address/prefix, while the
> essence of stateful solution is to maintain the subscriber-based state
> on-demand. IPv4 address and IPv6 address is not coupled, and there is no
> requirement on IPv6 addressing format. It is twisty to mix them together in
> one document as in the current draft-ietf-softwire-map. It is not clear for
> vendors to implement and for operators to deploy, and will lose the
> features for both.
>
> I'm not saying I'm against the work of stateless solutions, but it is
> really not fair to just extend one solution arbitrarily to cover another
> one without the permission from the WG and the authors. In particular,
> lightweight 4over6 is a collaborative work of 15 co-authors for more than
> one and a half years, including operators from China Telecom, Tsinghua,
> Comcast, France telecom, Deutsche Telekom, Bouygues Telecom, etc., and also
> the vendors from Huawei, Juniper and Cisco.
>
> Our WG or DT has never reached the consensus to have one unified document
> for both stateful and stateless sotluion. And the motivation draft has
> never been extended to include the stateful features as well. So unless we
> reach the consensus first in the WG, we can then move forward with this
> document.
>
> Best wishes
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Satoru Matsushima <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Qiong,
>>
>> I'm disagree with your opinion.
>>
>> 1. Recent changes in draft-ietf-softwire-map-00 has been discussed in the
>> DT.
>> 2. MAP just covers so called '1:1 mode' with most granular mapping rule
>> for CEs provisioning, which is as one of its characteristics.
>> 3. The motivation draft does not restrict that as you stated, just
>> 'assumed', it's neither 'MUST' nor 'SHOULD'.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> --satoru
>>
>>
>> On 2012/06/24, at 14:35, Qiong wrote:
>>
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > As we all know, once an individual draft is adopted as a WG draft, it
>> is owned by the whole WG, rather than just the editors. Just as Remi said,
>> the normal procedure to follow is to reach WG consensus _before_ posting a
>> newly edited version.
>> >
>> > From draft-mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port-03 to
>> draft-ietf-softwire-map-00, there are several changes between them. In
>> particular, the newly introduced "1:1 mode", which decouples IPv4 and IPv6
>> addressing, has never been discussed openly in the WG mailing list, or even
>> in the MAP design team either.
>> >
>> > Actually, this "1:1 mode" is against the stateless-4v6-motivation
>> draft. The motivation draft has clearly defines the "Stateless 4/6
>> solution" as follows:
>> >
>> > Stateless 4/6 solution denotes a solution which does not require any
>> per-user state (see Section 2.3 of [RFC1958]) to be maintained by any IP
>> address sharing function in the Service Provider's network. This category
>> of solutions assumes a dependency between an IPv6 prefix and IPv4 address.
>> >
>> > AFAIK what the WG has adopted MAP related draft is
>> draft-mdt-softwire-mapping-address-and-port-03, NOT
>> draft-ietf-softwire-map-00. And the stateless solution should “response to
>> the solution motivation document” according to the Softwire charter. That
>> means draft-ietf-softwire-map-00 IS NOT QUALIFIED to be a WG draft.
>> >
>> > We can all recall that our softwire WG has worked on stateless
>> solutions for more than one and a half years, and we have achieved a lot of
>> work which has been documented in charter, stateless motivation,
>> 4rd-varients, MAP-03, etc. AFAIK all the authors have kept the basic
>> "stateless" principle and the MAP design team is also working on it
>> together to find a better algorithm, address format, etc. So it is really
>> not appropriate to make such changes when MAP is adopted as a WG item in
>> such a short time.
>> >
>> > From this perspective, draft-ietf-softwire-map-00 can only be regarded
>> as draft-XX-softwire-mapping-address-and-port-04. It is not even the output
>> of MAP design team.
>> >
>> > Best wishes
>> >
>> > ==============================================
>> > Qiong Sun
>> > China Telecom Beijing Research Institude
>> >
>> >
>> > Open source code:
>> > lightweight 4over6: http://sourceforge.net/projects/laft6/
>> > PCP-natcoord: http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcpportsetdemo/
>> > ===============================================
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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/ *
> ===============================================
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>
>