Hi Sri, I think this scenario is practical. In the host to host communication, some users have upgraded their IPv4 app, but some do not. You cannot guarantee that all the users have updated their apps.
Thanks, Zhen On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Sri Gundavelli <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Hui, > > Now, we are closing down on identifying the gap. > > 1.) IPv6 App communicating with an IPv6 App > 2.) IPv4 App communicating with an IPv4 App > 3.) IPv6 App communicating with a legacy IPv4 App > 4.) IPv4 legacy App communicating with a future IPv6 App > > Mainly, the gap seems to be #4 and you want to do host translation for that > scenario. I agree, we do not support that scenario at this point. Surely, > host translation is one option if you want to support that case. Or, one can > do implicit tunnels (Per Alain/Dan's approach). But, I'm not convinced about > that use-case. Your network is IPv6-only network, your host has IPv6-only > transport, but why IPv6 cant be used ? If you give the legacy argument, that > you cannot modify the application, its fine, but this is the case of a > legacy app requiring to talk to a future IPv6 app. You will have to justify > this requirement, given that there are no host to host applications (IPv4 to > IPv6) deployed today. You can off course, simple add IPv4 support to the > peer and done with it and that is a simple solution. _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
