> > It seems that a real world problem case is not covered by this > > update: tunneling v6 over v4 when there is a legacy CPE NAT in the > way, > > in an ISP-managed way (unlike Teredo). At the moment this is a well > > known but orphaned problem, which will remain with us until the last > > NAT44-only consumer CPE device has gone. > > > > It's certainly the case that this scenario doesn't quite match > > RFC 4925 and doesn't need to "support all combinations of IP versions > > over one other." However, that is just a matter of charter > wordsmithing.
+1, Sheng > +1 > > RD > > > > > Nit: there's a reference to NAT-PT; maybe it should be NAT64 these > days. > > > > Regards > > Brian Carpenter > > > > On 2011-03-22 10:29, IESG Secretary wrote: > >> A modified charter has been submitted for the Softwires (softwire) > >> working group in the Internet Area of the IETF. The IESG has not > made any > >> determination as yet. The modified charter is provided below for > >> informational purposes only. Please send your comments to the IESG > >> mailing list ([email protected]) by Tuesday, March 29, 2011. > > _______________________________________________ > > Softwires mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
