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

[Qi Sun <[e-mail]>]

Hi Satoru,

Please see inline :)

Qi Sun

On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Satoru Matsushima <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Qi,
>
> On 2012/06/27, at 19:01, Qi Sun wrote:
>
> >
> > [Qi] DHCPv4 over IPv6 is a provisioning method. And it's about the
> public IPv4 address allocation, NOT about IPv4 address and IPv6 address
> mapping. So there is no state. Please read the draft of DHCPv4 over IPv6
> for clarification.
> > LW4over6 needs to maintain the binding table on TC. That's stateful.
>
> That sense is 'stateless' in my mind if there's no DHCP state in the BR.
>
> [Qi] What discussed here is about states on data plane, aka the v4-v6
addressing binding(please refer to joel's email). The binding table could
be dynamic(on-demand) or static.


> > Actually in MAP 1:1 mode there will be a binding table right? Here comes
> the question: what will you do if there are new comers or some users
> leaving the network?
>
> it is just an operation in provision. Now I find that LW46 could be
> possible to merged with MAP, or vice versa. thanks.
>

[Qi] LW4over6 is a solution targeting at the per-user stateful/binding
scenario, pure and clear.
MAP is originally targeting at pure stateless/alogrithmic address
mapping scenario, and then comes
to this 1:1 mode due to the theoretical corner case of EA-bits=0,
according to you guys.
While I believe the main targets are differnt and paralled
(actually two out of three in 4-over-6 case,
with the 3rd one per-session stateful), I don't think merging is the
proper way to proceed.

Thanks,
Qi

>
> cheers,
> --satoru