Hi Jan, ISPs can't deploy MAP-E/T and use the two mechanism to transmit IPv4 traffic in their network at the same time. So I aggree with Gang that MAP-E and MAP-T should be treated as separate solutions.
BR Yu -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jan Zorz @ go6.si Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 3:38 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Softwires] MAP-E&T vs 4rd-U On 4/10/12 7:35 AM, GangChen wrote: > OTOH, I'm still not fully convinced MAP-E and -T should be treated as > one solution. I like MAP-E or -T to be deployed as a separate > solution. However, coexistence means operators should have double > packages inspection toolkits, double operational rules delivery and > double provisioning costs. In some cases, translation solution is > exclusive to encapsulation (Please see more in > draft-dec-stateless-4v6). Even you can implement in the same box, > that's very inconvenient for operation and subscriber. According > RFC6180, it is fundamental two different solution. Hi, I see MAP-E/T combo as one solution, where you "turn the knob" when implementing it - you choose encap *or* translation mode. Whichever mode you choose, there is no sign of the other anymore. Cheers, Jan _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
