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

[Qiong <[e-mail]>]

Hi Satoru,

It is not only about the exact number of mapping rules, but also the
dynamic feature of it.

For the number of mapping rules, it is obviously its objective to keep the
least number of mapping rules in stateless solution. See section 3.1.1 in
the motivation draft:

3.1.1.  Network Dimensioning
   Because no per-user state [RFC1958] is required, a stateless solution
   does not need to take into account the maximum number of simultaneous
   user-sessions and the maximum number of new user-sessions per second
   to dimension its networking equipment.  Like current network
   dimensioning practices, only considerations related to the customers
   number, traffic trends and the bandwidth usage need be taken into
   account.

Does it still fit for 1:1 mapping mode ?


On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Satoru Matsushima <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Qiong,
>
> A MAP domain can have several/some/many mapping rules in the domain. How
> many is threshold for either stateless or stateful?
>
> cheers,
> --satoru
>
> On 2012/06/25, at 15:51, Qi Sun wrote:
>
> > Hi Satoru,
> >
> > In MAP 1:1 mode, if there are 10000000 subscribers, there would be
> 10000000 MAP domains which a BR has to manage. I think that will create a
> huge mapping table on the BR, which is called 'state' that stateful
> solutions deal with.
> >
> > Best Regards!
> >
> > Qi Sun
> >
> > From: Satoru Matsushima
> > Date: 2012-06-25 10:27
> > To: Lee, Yiu
> > CC: [e-mail]; Yong Cui
> > Subject: Re: [Softwires] [Softwire] draft-ietf-softwire-map-00 does NOT
> reflect the consensus from the WG
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/ *
===============================================