Alain and David, I agree that 6rd has many operational limitations. I pointed out several that have not yet been fully addressed:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires/current/msg01263.html That means that 6rd needs to have an applicability statement as part of its base document, as was required for transition mechanisms developed in the ngtrans and early phases of v6ops days. Fred [email protected] ________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Durand, Alain Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 6:41 PM To: softwires Cc: Ole Troan Subject: [Softwires] Chair input on 6rd/MTU discussion Wg, As chairs, We've been looking at the MTU thread on 6rd. There has been many good points made and we have had an healthy discussion. It is now time to move on with the base spec. MTU is one of the many operational issues with 6rd. The chairs and the authors discussed a while back to have a companion document to 6rd that will focus on exactly those operational considerations. We do believe that the 6rd MTU discussion belongs there. In order to not tie the hands of that new document, it will be better if the base spec were to remain silent on the MTU issue. This future operational document should be focused on 6rd and not try to solve the generic tunneling MTU discussion. The generic work is important too, and certainly need to find a home. However this is a different topic, for future discussions with our ADs. - Alain & David.
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
