Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-02.txt

["Lee, Yiu" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dapeng,

This draft was written by operators, we do not have any problem
understanding it. Besides, I disagree we "intentionally hide the truth".
Please explain to the WG what truth we are trying to hide in this draft? I
am not convinced we need to say anymore than what we have stated in the
new version.


Thanks,
Yiu


On 6/12/12 11:45 AM, "liu dapeng" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>2012/6/12, Lee, Yiu <[e-mail]>:
>> Hi Dapeng.,
>>
>> This is not a specification draft. This is a draft to discuss the
>> motivations. IMHO, people who are working in this area would be able to
>> understand this draft.
>
>=> I guess the audience is not only designer of protocol, but also
>operators
>who want to evaluate and adopt such technology. Intentional hiding the
>truth
>for me is really bad.
>
>
>
>The focus of it is about the carrier network, CPE
>> is never the focal point. I think the current statement "States may
>>still
>> exist in other equipments such as customer premises equipment." is
>>enough.
>
>=>Please see my reply in previous mail. "may" is not sufficient.
>
>> Adding more text only causes confusion.
>
>=>What I do is objectively to elaborate what we are. Why would that cause
>confusion?
>
>Regards,
>Dapeng
>
>
>> Thanks,
>> Yiu
>>
>> On 6/12/12 6:21 AM, "liu dapeng" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>>2012/6/12, Ole Trøan <[e-mail]>:
>>>>> Ok, then we can make this more clear in our document.
>>>>>
>>>>> "States still should be maintained in other equipments, e.g. customer
>>>>> premises equipment or host, in order to restrict IP address or port
>>>>> number
>>>>> information into the configured context except that a non-shared IPv4
>>>>> address is
>>>>> assigned to a standalone host."
>>>>
>>>> I think this is just adding confusion.
>>>> the NAT44 on the CPE already does this.
>>>
>>>=>First off, we are not only talking about NAT44 here, but port
>>>translation and non-shared address. Secondly, NAT44 on the CPE is not
>>>doing what today NAT44 does. For example, override ID in ICMP with
>>>port information.
>>>
>>>that reminds me to update the proposed text a bit,
>>>
>>>"States still should be maintained in other equipments, e.g. customer
>>>premises equipment or host, in order to restrict L3 or L4 information
>>>into the configured context except that a non-shared IPv4 address is
>>>assigned to a standalone host."
>>>
>>>> I suggest we instead talk about no _additional_ state in the network.
>>>>there
>>>> is no need to mention the CPE, apart from stating that no additional
>>>>state
>>>> is required.
>>>
>>>=>I believe the above is clear for reader and designer. I don't see why
>>>we resist on clarifying and helping reader better understanding.
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Dapeng Liu
>>>
>>>
>>>> cheers,
>>>> Ole
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>
>>>------
>>>Best Regards,
>>>Dapeng Liu
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Softwires mailing list
>>>[e-mail]
>>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>>
>
>
>-- 
>
>------
>Best Regards,
>Dapeng Liu