? 2011/7/29 19:18, Hui Deng ??:
Hi Cameron.
Right now, i feel like it would be easier for the IETF to just define
NAT464 in general and stateless translation 4V6 is a flavor of NAT464.
I understand the allure of stateless. But, IMHO the address
multiplexing of stateful is very useful and many large SPs already run
this way, and that operational experience is very important. The IPv6
transition space is becoming very crowded, i personally would like to
see more work to make IPv6 a true replacement for IPv4 instead of yet
another transition mechanism that meets some set for checkboxs.
==> stateless 464 is good in his own environment, it may not be able
to compatible with NAT64 or others, stateful 464 has advantage which
could work with others, will see.
FYI, the dIVI
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xli-behave-divi/https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xli-behave-divi/)
and dIVI-PD (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-xli-behave-divi-pd/)
models are fully compatiple with stateless NAT64, i.e. RFC6052 and RFC6145.
Regards,
xing
-Hui
This architecture is complicated.
CB
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
