Hi folks,
As we discussed on DS-Lite Management Information Base (MIB)
in Paris meeting, the chairs would like to ask for WG adoption on
mailing list. Please review this document and send your comments
(especially your opinion on the adoption with your reasons) to the
mailing list by two weeks,
public 4over6 is exactly the same as MAP in hub and spoke mode with one mapping
rule per subscriber.
and if Reinaldo is correct, also the same as b4-translated-ds-lite.
we have 4 mechanisms doing almost the exact same thing (4rd, MAP, 4over6,
B4-translated).
I would suggest that we do not
Support.
Tina
On May 29, 2012, at 11:54 PM, Yong Cui cuiy...@tsinghua.edu.cn wrote:
Hi folks,
As we discussed on DS-Lite Management Information Base (MIB)
in Paris meeting, the chairs would like to ask for WG adoption on
mailing list. Please review this document and send your comments
Hi Reinaldo,
In my understanding, public 4over6 is mainly designed for host-orientied
server behind the CPE. So the senario of public 4over6 is different from
lightweight 4over6. It is better to be described seperately.
I support it to be advanced. Thanks.
Best wishes
Qiong
On Mon, May 28,
+1 support.
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Yong Cui cuiy...@tsinghua.edu.cn wrote:
Hi folks,
This is a wg last call on draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-01.
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivatio
If we continue like this somebody will write a draft called
draft-ietf-100.64.0.2-00 which tells how we can give this specific address
to a CPE.
Everything that is in this draft is possible to be done already in at least
3 different ways. Please point what can not be done today with
