exactly, thank you Alain. Jacni
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Alain Durand <adur...@juniper.net> wrote: > Jacni: > > The bellow statement only applies to dual-stack hosts implementing the B4 > element... > Those behind a home gateway are fine, even if they only resolve over IPv4 > transport. > Note: the solutions described in this thread are very similar to what has > been suggested to get Windows XP to resolve DNS in an IPv6-only environment. > > - Alain. > > > > > > On May 30, 2010, at 1:21 PM, Jacni Qin wrote: > > ok, > or just simply add a statement somewhere like, dual stack hosts that can > not send dns query over v6 are > also out of scope. > ;-) > > > On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 10:50 PM, Lee, Yiu <yiu_...@cable.comcast.com > <mailto:yiu_...@cable.comcast.com>> wrote: > Ok. We did mention this in the draft, but it seems you found it unclear. I > will work with Alain to clarify the text. Thanks for the comments! > > > > On 5/30/10 3:57 AM, "Jacni Qin" <jac...@gmail.com<http://jac...@gmail.com/>> > wrote: > > i agree with you that dns proxy over v6 in B4 should be preferred, > > while we should mention this special case in the draft, because this will > be not so special > if many hosts running that kind of OS still exist at the time when we start > to implement DS-Lite. > and the recommendations for dealing with this case may be also included. > > regards, > Jacni > > <ATT00001..txt> > >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
