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

[Satoru Matsushima <[e-mail]>]

Hi Yiu,

No, that's a misunderstanding.
Current MAP specify the case for ea-len is 'zero'. It is 'per-subscriber mapping' in stateless manner, not to introduce 'per-flow NAT binding' or 'per-subscriber state on demand'.

cheers,
--satoru

On 2012/06/25, at 2:32, Lee, Yiu wrote:

> Dear Satoru and MAP-DT
> 
> I echo what Peng and Qiong said. When the WG agreed working on the
> stateless solution, it was very clear stated that the solution would not
> maintain states in the network. If the 1:1 mode changed this, this no
> longer matched the requirements stated in the stateless motivation draft,
> thus, it would disqualify MAP as a solution for the motivation draft.
> 
> AFAIK, the MAP Design Team could propose a change, but such a dramatic
> change by introducing states in the network would require WG approval. I
> would like the chairs to clarify this.
> 
> Thanks,
> Yiu
> 
> 
> On 6/24/12 12:21 PM, "Peng Wu" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Qiong, Satoru and all,
>> 
>> I should thank Qiong for pointing this out. I gotta say I'm a bit shocked.
>> If I understand the procedures of IETF correctly, a WG document should
>> reflect the consensus of the WG. MAP is approved by the WG as a
>> stateless solution. As a participator in Softwire, I didn't get the
>> information anywhere that the MAP WG document would cover the
>> so-called 1:1, in fact per-user stateful mode before it was released,
>> not to say discuss in the WG. Don't the WG need to approve such big
>> change anymore?
>> 
>> Now let me provide my impression as an outsider of the MAP DT. You
>> guys make great effort to build the solution, The address composition,
>> the GMA algorithm, the different types of address mapping rules.
>> should be quite difficult to pull together such sophisticated ideas. I
>> guess that's what it takes to achieve the benifits of statelessness.
>> And I admire that, bravo. Then, all of a sudden, you guys are saying,
>> let's apply this sophisticated method to the different problem, by
>> dropping quite some comlexity and twistting the mechanism a bit, seems
>> it may work. Considering the problem are now solved in a more pure and
>> clear way, I'm sorry but I CANNOT follow the logic here.
>> 
>> 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 ³response
>>>> to the solution motivation document² 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
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Softwires mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>> _______________________________________________
>> Softwires mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires