Le 30 oct. 2010 à 01:07, Fred Baker a écrit : > other speakers were brought in to confuse the discussion including Remi, who > wanted to talk about 6rd tunneling and as always jumped on every venue that > opened up with a view to talking about it,
- I wasn't "bought in" by anyone. - In minutes of the 6AI bof, 6rd isn't even mentioned - It is noted in minutes that I said "this scheme can have trouble due to one's complement" which is a *technical* comment about your proposal I do feel offended by your statement. > It would be nice to be able to have an actual technical discussion of the > proposal that is actually on the table. > For the first time since it was brought up. 1. See above what I said at the bof. 2. Please feel free to answer why you have in your draft (so far without explanation): - in sec. 8, "If the resulting value is 0xFFFF, it is changed to 0x0000" () - in sec. 11, "NAT66 devices with more than one internal interface SHOULD assign a (non-0xFFFF) subnet number to each link" Also: - You write in your draft "NAT66 provides a simple and COMPELLING solution to meet the Address Independence requirement in IPv6" - I confirm my claim that this isn't compelling because an e2e-transparent alternative exists, as described draft-despres-softwire-sam-01 - The "technical discussion" would consist in explaining why the SAM solution, based on encapsulation rather than translation, doesn't preserve address independence. RD _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
