Hi Turchanyi,
Thanks, it was just an idea which I got on weekend ;-) when I was reading IPv6 RFC 2460. Everyone has time to write all type of tunneling protocols b/w ipv4 and ipv6. The idea which I gave makes ipv4 to live for few more decades without much hassle. The header format and packet handling can be decided the ipv6 way for ipv4 way. Anyways it goes with the peoples choice whether it can be designed or not. Thanks & Best regards Mahesh G From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Turchanyi Geza Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 2:19 AM To: [email protected] Cc: IPv6 WG Mailing List Subject: Re: ipv4 and ipv6 a different protocol Hi Mahesh, Let's imagine that we introduce these two new protocols. Would it be easier to implement them as IP4/IP6 dual stack? The complet socket interface should be rewriten at least.... We have already enough pains - probably it is less work to implement IPv6 "as it is" than to intruduce two "mixed solutions", Géza On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Mahesh Govindappa <[email protected]> wrote: Hi, I was thinking that why cant we have a 2 different protocol types. 1. Where src address is ipv4 and dst as ipv6 address. 2. Where src is ipv6 and dst as ipv4 address. We name a different protocol number for each of them and have a different treatment when it comes to application level and in routers. Let me know if that is a good idea. Thanks Mahesh G -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
