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

[Peng Wu <[e-mail]>]

Satoru,

Mapping, binding, rule, state,call it whatever you want,  essentially
it's the same thing: per-user IPv6 address<=>IPv4 address+port-set.
Or you are saying that this binding is purely static?

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Satoru Matsushima
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> 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
>