I would do this for all the mechanisms we have designed to provide
IPv4 over IPv6 with a new one each meeting (I would suggest switching
each day of the meeting but I suspect Jim would kill me).
e.g. DS-LITE, MAP-*
For DS-LITE I would even suggest that we do DS-LITE host mode at
the end.
Mark
On 6 Oct 2016, at 16:22, Lee Howard wrote:
On 10/6/16, 3:30 PM, "sunset4 on behalf of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ"
wrote:
Despite how much I like all those ideas, I don't think we are ready
to have an IPv6-only IETF network.
On 10/6/16, 3:30 PM, "sunset4 on behalf of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ"
wrote:
>Despite how much I like all those ideas, I don't think we are ready to have an
>IPv6-only IETF network.
>
>Unfortunately, there are many applications,
Despite how much I like all those ideas, I don't think we are ready to have an
IPv6-only IETF network.
Unfortunately, there are many applications, VPNs, etc., which will not work
just with NAT64, because literals, etc.
I will suggest something alternative at this stage:
Having the IETF
After the last WG meeting, I walked away with seven things that I thought we
needed to do:
Update my v4historic draft. I intend to do this in time for the Seoul meeting.
Phillip Hallam-Baker suggested something like
"draft-baker-ipv4status-its-complicated." I would like to hear more about this,