On 2011-08-19 05:19, Tetsuya Murakami wrote: > draft-murakami-softwire-4rd > draft-murakami-softiwire-4v6-translation > > I think it might be good to combine these 2 drafts to create one unified > document for 4rd specification.
The problem I see with this is: - We (the IETF) might need to specify both translation and encapsulation protocols, because they have different applicability. (Still needs to be decided.) - Operators will choose translation or encapsulation for each deployment, probably not both. - Implementations of translation vs encapsulation will probably be very different. I see this as leading to different "products" or "feature sets" targeted to different markets. For example 3GPP products might want to implement translation while broadband products might want to implement encapsulation. So in the end, I see an operator A needing the 4rd-Translation solution and operator B needing the 4rd-Encapsulation solution. This fits nicely with two different RFCs, is more easily cited in RFPs, etc. Simon -- DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca NAT64/DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca STUN/TURN server --> http://numb.viagenie.ca _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
