hi Suresh and all,
personally i think this work is still premature for the WG adoption.
reasons are below:
1. current draft makes a logic for the CPE to decide its mode according to
what information it received from DHCP options. however, DHCP options are
not the only available provision mean. what if my CPE get MAP information
through DHCP, while lw4over6 information from PCP, while another MAP
domain's provision through manually configuration? when such kind of basic
questions not yet fully discussed, i doubt it is suitable to adopt this
work at so early stage.
2. some important issues are not yet comprehensively discussed, or almost
missing, in the current draft. e.g. (but not limited to),
- what is the correct NAPT source port overlapping behaviour for the
unified CPE?
- what is the correct fragment/reassemble behaviour for the unified
CPE?
as currently there is no MAP members joins this draft, i am worrying that
the draft has fully reflected the concern from the MAP side.
thanks and regards,
maoke
2013/2/5 Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krish...@ericsson.com>
> Hi all,
> This draft was a result of the discussion initiated at the softwire
> meeting in Atlanta to attempt to come up with a unified CPE
> specification that can work with both MAP and lw4o6. This call is being
> initiated to determine whether there is WG consensus towards adoption of
> draft-bfmk-softwire-unified-cpe-02 as a softwire WG draft. Please state
> whether or not you're in favor of the adoption by replying to this
> email. If you are not in favor, please also state your objections in
> your response. This adoption call will complete on 2013-02-18.
>
> Regards
> Suresh & Yong
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> Softwires@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
