Le 20 août 2011 à 03:55, Mark Townsley a écrit : > > On Aug 19, 2011, at 8:04 PM, Nejc Škoberne wrote: > >>> Because of what RFC6333 says, suggesting NOW that solutions that don't need >>> NATs are variants of DS-lite is a sure way to confuse people. > > Then we're already confused: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-softwire-cgn-bypass-03
Could you explain more which confusion you are referring to? RD
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
