Le 15 oct. 2010 à 10:29, Masataka Ohta a écrit : > Remi Respres wrote: > >> Problems can occur with some CPEs that don't comply with RFC 5382, > > RFC5382 is, by no means, a deployed standard.
Not even a standard-track document (but nevertheless useful to comply with). Beside, assuming that ISPS assign 10/8 IPv4 addresses, the only customers to be concerned seem to be those: - whose NAT doesn't comply with RFC 5382 - assign 10/8 addresses internally (not typical for default behaviors of unmanaged CPEs) >> In my understanding, although NAT444 + 6rd is far from being the >> only model to offer IPv6 service while dealing with the IPv4 >> address shortage, IT IS a deployable approach. >> For some ISPs, it has a very good performance/cost ratio. > > That's an argument similar to ones heard for these 15 years. Which, of course, isn't sufficient for it to be wrong. RD > > Masataka Ohta > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
