Le 8 déc. 2010 à 13:38, Tom Taylor a écrit : May I suggest some amendments to the abstract that, IMHO, better explain what GI 6rd does, and avoids its interpretation as a criticism of the 6rd of RFC 5969?
If agreed for the abstract, amendments to the draft can be made accordingly (and I could contribute if needed). 1. Replace "This document proposes a modification to the 6rd deployment model for IPv6." by "This document proposes a deployment model of 6rd that is additional to the basic model of RFC 5969." Reason: the deployment model of RFC 5969 still holds, and needs not to be modified. 2. Before "6rd requires support by a device (the 6rd CE) on the customer site" add "In RFC 5969," 3. Replace "The advantages of this approach are that it requires no modification to customer equipment and avoids assignment of IPv4 addresses to customer equipment." by "Where access networks can directly support native IPv6, the advantage of this approach is that customer equipment only needs to support natively-routed IPv6, as opposed to support also 6rd. Besides, it can apply even across access networks in which IPv4 isn't deployed." Reasons: - This advantage only applies where access networks, in particular their hardware, supports native IPv6. - A CPE that is IPv4-only also needs to be modified. - Providing IPv6 only to customers where IPv4 could be also provided is not always an advantage. This can be a disadvantage where customers are permitted to use their own CPEs. Regards, RD _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
