Hi Washam, I am glad to hear that there are interests for this draft. In last IETF meeting, the WG didn't reach any content whether the WG should spend any effort to work on this problem. Some people believed the existing L2TPv2 softwire could solve this problem. We argued that deploying L2TPv2 was heavy and could be expensive. However, we didn't have as many responses from the floor as we wanted. In short, no consent was reached.
Yiu On 9/27/10 3:52 AM, "WashamFan" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Personally, I support the motivation of the draft. The draft > says HGW is unable to be modified in some cases. My situation > is worse than that. My ISP already assigned me 10/8 address > because of the pressure of IPv4 exhaustion, I guess. > > For section 7, I think there is one issue missed. IPv6 communication > between 6rd UDP hosts would be hairpined via 6rd BR. That > should be different from classic 6rd. > > I'd like to know the status of the draft, is the WG pursuing this > work? > > Thanks, > washam > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
