Hi Daniel, This change is to address a comment from IESG. Our goal here is to ensure dslite which is a NAPT44 solution should work like what NAPT44 is supposed to do today. The word "interfere" should be interpreted that dslite must not change any existing VPN solutions for NAPT44. It doesn't mean dslite MUST NOT modify the packet. For example: what defined in RFC3947 and RFC3948 must not be interfered by dslite.
Best regards, Yiu On 5/3/11 4:15 PM, "Daniel Roesen" <[email protected]> wrote: >On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 10:30:02AM -0700, [email protected] wrote: >> Title : Dual-Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following >>IPv4 Exhaustion >> Author(s) : A. Durand, et al. >> Filename : draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite-08.txt > >7.2. VPN > > Dual-stack lite implementations MUST NOT interfere with the > functioning of IPv4 or IPv6 VPNs. > >This "MUST NOT" was "SHOULD NOT" in -07. What's the motivation for that >change? > >Is there a specific problem/scenario which is supposed to be solved? How >is a DS-Lite implementation supposed to not interfere e.g. with >IPSEC-AH (and other VPN types having inherent problems with NAPT44)? > >Best regards, >Daniel > >-- >CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [email protected] -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0 >_______________________________________________ >Softwires mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
