On Aug 20, 2011, at 3:20 AM, Rémi Després wrote: > > 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?
Nejc suggested that DS-Lite without NATs (which I assumed meant without a CGN NAT, aka AFTR) would be confusing at this stage. The title of the referenced document is "Procedure to bypass DS-Lite AFTR" - Mark > > RD > > > >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
