Hi Sri, My purpose here is just discuss whether you support it or not, I will summarize now, thanks for your discussion.
before I leave, just one comment: I don't see solutions here solving any IPv6 problem, they are solving IPv4 problem by assiging unlmited Ipv4 address, it greatly prolong the life of IPv4 such a great invention, congratulations. but we are not convinced that IETF should standardize it. thanks again. -Hui 2009/12/7 Sri Gundavelli <[email protected]>: > Hi Hui, > > > On 12/6/09 2:18 AM, "Hui Deng" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> It's quite clear same as you said here, there are binary codes and codec >> codes >> which need additioinal payment for updating, it's a existing scenario. >> > > I do not understand this response. I'm not a codec or a DSP expert, but I > don't see how when you change an application to use IPv6 socket from an IPv4 > socket, the codec has to change. I assume the SDP protocol can handle both > the versions in media description. I'm sure, some RTP, SDP or media experts > in the list can comment on this. > >> What I don't understand is that there is the problem quite clear need >> to be solved by someone, >> but other people don't want to solve those problem just because his >> solution doesn't support it, , >> and then they strongly prevent other people from solveing the problem >> I don't think it is good way in IETF. >> > > No. You have to convince the WG, not me. You started the thread, I disagreed > with this use-case and I don't believe this is a valid requirement. But, to > take your stand for a second, even if this is real and some how we are not > appreciating that requirement, this should be one of those rare applications > that have to be retired. You don't change the whole host architecture for > these one of a kind rare applications and bring all the host change baggage. > In migration, there is a cost as well. > > Regarding your comment that I agreed offline that it is difficult to change > legacy deployed applications. *Yes*. I'm talking about *deployed* > applications, not about future applications dealing with future scenarios. > Please give the context along with the comment. All you need is one line > requirement for your application developers to use both IPv4 and IPv6 > sockets for the future applications that they write, that's all. Note, this > is not a legacy deployed application requirement, its about a future > application unable to use IPv6 transport, compiled for an IPv6-only > platform. > > Lets allow others to comment. We made our points and we are not converging. > > > Regards > Sri > > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
