--- On Thu, 3/19/09, David W. Hankins <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The first use case is "Dual-stack lite" but
> the same option can be used for IPv6 in IPv6 tunnels (see
> RFC2473).
>
> How would a client know which one to configure? How would
> a server
> know which ones the client supports?
>
> I think it would work better to have a different option for
> each use
> case scenario ("a different protocol field for every
> OS knob"). The
> client then advertises what configuration values it can use
> (by
> listing any it supports on the Option Request Option).
>
Agreed.
I suggest to change in the draft the reference from
"draft-droms-softwires-snat-01" to the new
"draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite-00".
and to name the option : OPTION_DSLITE.
Francois-Xavier
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
