On Mar 26, 2009, at 19:08, james woodyatt wrote:
On Mar 26, 2009, at 18:59, james woodyatt wrote:
Note: if outbound source-routing shim processing is defined to
allow its *removal* when the source route is complete, then it's
possible that sites using a mechanism like this need not even be
aware that correspondent sites are using it.
s/site using a mechanism like this/sites *not* using a mechanism
like this/
Ugh. I'm looking at the notes I wrote to myself the last time I
thought I might have time to write a draft about this, and now I'm
remembering the reason I put it on the shelf: both sides of
communication need to upgrade before the side that wants address
independence can communicate. There is also the other reason I put it
on the shelf: it doesn't use translators, and people really really
really want translators.
--
james woodyatt <[email protected]>
member of technical staff, communications engineering
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
