On Oct 21, 2010, at 11:52 AM, Roger Marquis wrote: > Used to be the IEFT required a reproducible working implementation before > considering this sort of RFC. Has that policy been discontinued?
I think you are discussing routing protocols, which require interoperable working implementations to go to proposed standard. However, prototypes have been built, multiple, of the original proposal, which was to update the checksum in bits 48..63 of the address. One prototype was built by BUPT students and reported on in terms of the end to end identity issues in an IEEE workshop in spring 2009 IIRC, and a more recent one was done by Sven-Ola Tuecke. I don't believe that we have prototyped the work in the EID that Margaret has in this draft, but we have done mathematical correctness checks. Begin forwarded message: > From: "Sven-Ola Tuecke" <[email protected]> > Date: October 6, 2010 5:31:58 AM EDT > To: [email protected], [email protected] > Subject: NAT66 implementation > > Hi, > > FYI: you may be interested in my implementation of NAT66 for Linux netfilter, > available under http://map66.sf.net/ It works and I just completed the > documentation, see http://map66.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/map66/README.txt > > With kind regards, > // Sven-Ola _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
