Ole, Is RFC7597 is corrent document to understand your comments ?
I know MAP-E and MAP-T. Does MAP means both MAP-E and MAP-T? regards, Naoki (2016/02/18 19:55), [email protected] wrote: > Naoki, > > MAP et al already supports: > - private IPv4 addresses > - full IPv4 address or IPv4 prefix (i.e. does not need NAT44 on the CE) > - does mesh mode > > I'm not quite sure I understand what's left of the problem space to solve. > > Best regards, > Ole > > >> On 18 Feb 2016, at 07:04, Naoki Matsuhira<[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Wes, >> >> I agree the necessity of problem statement. The draft of problem >> statement must require before next Buenos Aires meeting ? or continue >> on this mailing list? >> >> I commented in-line below focused only the point that I think. >> >> Thank you your advice that reorganizing to one or two drafts. I have my >> own reason why 6 drafts exists, however I would like to think at the >> time of future update. >> >> (2016/02/17 3:41), George, Wes wrote: >>> Below inline with WG] >>> >>> On 2/16/16, 5:05 AM, "Naoki Matsuhira"<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> WG] it's not totally clear from the above, but it sounds like you're >>> proposing a method to connect IPv4-only islands over an IPv6-only network. >>> There are multiple existing solutions for this, including GRE or IPv4 in >>> IPv6 tunnels, MPLS encapsulation (L2/L3 VPNs), etc. The IETF has also >>> identified a need for "4PE", which is the IPv4 over IPv6 version of >>> RFC4798 (6PE) to do these sorts of island connections in a way that >>> involves less manual provisioning of tunnels. (see RFC 7439 section 3.3.2) >> >> Basically yes. so I think GRE and IPv4 in IPv6 tunnel are the >> comparison. These technology needs N^2 configuration to connect N with >> fullmesh. For example, in enterprise network, there are dual stack >> backbone and many dual stack stub network, and if backbone dual stack >> network operation move to IPv6 only operation, M46E-FP should contribute. >> >> >>> WG] your proposal is very light on details, so it is difficult to evaluate >>> its applicability. Your mention of plane IDs makes me think that you're >>> describing a way to disambiguate overlapping private address space, >>> similar to the VPNv4 address used in RFC4364, which is why I mentioned 4PE >>> above. >> >> I'm sorry for may poor description capability. >> We already have a running code and demonstrate at WIDE camp, Interop >> tokyo (3 years) , JGN-plus testbed, Strabed testbed. These technologies >> already work. I think draft can more refined on revision. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Naoki >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> sunset4 mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4 > > > > _______________________________________________ > sunset4 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4 _______________________________________________ sunset4 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
