IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Softwires] WG last call on draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-01

Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org> Thu, 07 June 2012 08:49 UTC

Return-Path: <ichiroumakino@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9623F21F8751 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 01:49:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S6R2r76GiuVq for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 01:49:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E188521F85D5 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 01:49:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by eaaq13 with SMTP id q13so143710eaa.31 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Jun 2012 01:49:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=uf9MfQZlVR8icNaiZHg3ULcvyjKNJ1J2xVunyR7P1cY=; b=mSaufWJApcRO9g6vza1aNdBadd/3HdJCwLVHy1tE3rqF1DnRCf3pHQhH9lEOZwZV+M sscMXEa1mjSgfBkffDZctXRThVgX/tq4wSKS8J1Nx6SOgGL+Zn4wgjdHDOZf5W36K+KJ 7K4GwIJpbpHohlN+B/cFckUQeOmi3QbF3BEdUsAsbx/gSU8Wzhl2ONiadqxgmQxvrqXt bENW45f39n/m0CEyq5EEiuEf6MBUPbxZrc11ksFbjWjXSRI+NvgY8V0Mt76rCfOexlmH NdVFdvJ0PkOMHRSESmR/ozIaOrsBOPbhqpm12rvL0zpUFQgsxmLLa9/+egP3pLc1ROMY wpCg==
Received: by 10.14.188.129 with SMTP id a1mr741378een.183.1339058941785; Thu, 07 Jun 2012 01:49:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-lys02-vla252-10-147-117-91.cisco.com (64-103-25-233.cisco.com. [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y54sm8329384eef.10.2012.06.07.01.49.00 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 07 Jun 2012 01:49:00 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Ole Troan <ichiroumakino@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAH3bfAD1RoE7pqAj-9wLv2L6JJcgWtSH76d3S8vQOB=7HYzJBA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 10:48:59 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1D677EF2-C5D8-4007-8F46-756C2A3939C4@employees.org>
References: <CBF23F0B.21901%yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com> <39098095-7D8B-44AA-9492-213283E89A4B@employees.org> <CAH3bfAD1RoE7pqAj-9wLv2L6JJcgWtSH76d3S8vQOB=7HYzJBA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Qiong <bingxuere@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
Cc: "softwires@ietf.org" <softwires@ietf.org>, Yong Cui <cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] WG last call on draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-01
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 08:49:03 -0000

Qiong,

> If public 4over6 is one extreme case of MAP, in which one subscriber represents one MAP domain, then should we also say that DS-Lite is another extreme case of MAP, where one application (session) represents one MAP domain ?  

a DS-lite AFTR could be represented by the combination of a MAP BR with per subscriber rules combined with a NAT44. there is a reason we started out calling MAP for "Stateless DS-lite".

> I think we should still keep the initial feature of these solutions.

all the proposed solutions, including DS-lite shares a large set of commonalities. where the differences are more operational considerations and deployment choices than technical differences. do we need a separate protocol specification for each deployment choice?

cheers,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email