Hi all, Two stateless solutions are proposed for residual deployment of IPv4 across IPv6-only provider services: - draft-murakami-softwire-4v6-translation, say 4V6T - draft-murakami-softwire-4rd, say 4V6E (with E for encapsulation)
They both use the same stateless address mapping, i.e. that of 4rd. It would therefore would be better, IMHO, to have: - a separate I-D on the 4rd address mapping - two solution I-D's pointing to it (one for 4V6T and one for 4V6E)). Thus comments on the I-D's would better separate what relates to: - Stateless IPv4 across IPv6-only in general (4V6) - Stateless address mappings between IPv4 and IPv6 (4rd) - Translation-based 4V6 (4V6T) - Encapsulation-based 4V6 (4V6E) Kind regards, RD NOTE: I really enjoyed working actively for IETF as initiator of 6rd, 4rd, and 6a44, but, for various personal reasons including financial, I now have to switch to another activity. In particular: - Going to Quebec won't be possible. - Pursuing with authorship responsibility for new 4rd drafts would have been too much (thanks to Tetsuya Murakami and Ole Troan for having taken over). _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
