Re: [Softwires] 4rd-U complement - e2e transparency to IPv4 TOS

Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net> Tue, 18 October 2011 14:31 UTC

Return-Path: <despres.remi@laposte.net>
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 C228B21F8B5D for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 07:31:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.774
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.774 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.175, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 KD6dOdWXDszy for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 07:31:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp24.services.sfr.fr (smtp24.services.sfr.fr [93.17.128.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D7FE21F8B5A for <softwires@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 07:31:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from filter.sfr.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by msfrf2419.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 6D59F7000123; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 16:31:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.0.21] (per92-10-88-166-221-144.fbx.proxad.net [88.166.221.144]) by msfrf2419.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 0AC3B70000FF; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 16:31:36 +0200 (CEST)
X-SFR-UUID: 20111018143137441.0AC3B70000FF@msfrf2419.sfr.fr
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net>
In-Reply-To: <0B52D2A1-9938-48A8-A87C-27DE39405263@townsley.net>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 16:31:36 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DF8BF1B0-63DB-4F9B-BE96-4D214513C0DC@laposte.net>
References: <85015B23-C124-43DB-913D-3829B895C2A9@laposte.net> <83A72484-7A54-4A30-AF9B-5FC9D97A9E14@gmail.com> <CAFUBMqWrw8e7sO80U74Q+UvJwW_sqxZZnnwTo7jhyayFBn5_Mg@mail.gmail.com> <6668E2F8-EEBA-4AF3-8110-2B0B43D3BC3E@gmail.com> <CAFUBMqVbZ7uTvHRpQDV1Y1eN9hJZ2tofzNvAM0hFHCrWZ_mA6g@mail.gmail.com> <596276A4-1C63-4A92-90FA-BC958DFB2053@gmail.com> <C7601B91-24ED-4C7F-A771-10F6AFE93F2F@laposte.net> <9D55CDB2-0DE1-441B-A622-22C3E2C66D4E@employees.org> <87BE3426-9B03-4D3E-AFBF-AB12923D2D84@laposte.net> <CAC8QAcd6TSnBkpE2+o0WS+QLdbEwRTO_NTgwqaN8ikWfmu2bpw@mail.gmail.com> <0A5AA31A-0A96-4D78-AC99-11FF58FDD217@laposte.net> <D2FC2906-23F3-4970-B35B-EECEBEBA1382@townsley.net> <49200DB8-5D14-46B7-A892-79262CFF6968@laposte.net> <C653042D-9AC3-4F2D-9F23-4061A1DD4377@townsley.net> <5F044EAF-A653-499B-86B1-993CA77D1071@laposte.net> <0B52D2A1-9938-48A8-A87C-27DE39405263@townsley.net>
To: Mark Townsley <mark@townsley.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: Softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] 4rd-U complement - e2e transparency to IPv4 TOS
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: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 14:31:43 -0000

Le 18 oct. 2011 à 15:35, Mark Townsley a écrit :
> On Oct 18, 2011, at 2:31 PM, Rémi Després wrote:
...

>> I do understand the inconvenience of having to adapt running codes based on encapsulation to a header mapping such as that of 4rd-U. 
>> However, I have no doubt that this is technically easy.
>> That's AFAIK the price to be paid to get a unique standard, with the nice bonus that existing IPv6-ACL tools, which weren't usable with encapsulation, become usable. 
...

> Bravo, your ingenuity has led you to something that lies perfectly in the middle of the two warring parties. The problem of course is that the solution has the full advantages of neither side,

It's not because a design has positive features of two other designs that it "lies in the middle".

Could you explain the important advantage of encapsulation that is missing in 4rd-U?


RD