Mark,
Interesting definition of "retronym".
It remains, though, that an analogue clock, the example given in the given
reference) is a clock variant (a device for measuring time).
A 4rd-encapsulation solution is in no way a DS-lite variant ("built on a tunnel
to reach a CGN").
It would be nice, therefore, if the idea of using "stateless DS-lite" as a
valuable substitute to "4rd" would no longer need to be discussed.
Thanks,
RD
Le 20 août 2011 à 04:05, Mark Townsley a écrit :
> Aug 19, 2011, at 1:08 PM, Rémi Després wrote:
>>
>> Le 19 août 2011 à 17:11, Mark Townsley a écrit :
...
>>>
>>> Let me fill you in on some history.
>>>
>>> The term "Dual Stack Lite" came into being during a discussion at a cafe
>>> between Alain Durand and I. It was June 2008, and Alain was in Paris for
>>> the ICANN meeting while still working for Comcast. We had been discussing
>>> the various pros and cons of tunneling vs. dual-translation for a while.
>>> Alain was emphasizing that what was of most importance to him as an ISP,
>>> was that he not be burdened with provisioning IPv4 within the ISP network
>>> itself. However, in all cases the service to the subscriber was intended to
>>> be dual-stack. So: "Dual-stack" service but "lighter" on the ISP in terms
>>> of management and provisioning. Thus the term "dual-stack lite" was born.
>>
>> That's a good clarification.
>>
>> But in the mean time, DS-lite got specified in an RFC that won't change.
>
> But RFC's get updated all the time, as does terminology. Adding an adjective
> to something that is well understood to indicate that it can serve the same
> purpose but in a different way is quite useful during the introduction of
> that technology. Think "Horseless Carriage"
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retronym
>
> A retronym is a type of neologism that provides a new name for an object or
> concept to differentiate the original form or version of it from a more
> recent form or version.[1] The original name is most often augmented with an
> adjective (rather than being completely displaced) to account for later
> developments of the object or concept itself. Much retronymy is driven by
> advances in technology.
>
> - Mark
>
>> RFC6333 says:
>> - "Dual-Stack Lite enables a broadband service provider to share IPv4
>> addresses among customers by combining two well-known technologies: IP in IP
>> (IPv4-in-IPv6) and Network Address Translation (NAT)."
>> - "the Dual-Stack Lite model is built on IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnels to cross the
>> network to reach a carrier-grade IPv4-IPv4 NAT (the AFTR),"
>> - etc.
>>
>>> From the beginning the "lite" term was about having less IPv4 in the access
>>> network for the operator to manage and provision, while still providing
>>> dual-stack service to the subscriber. 4rd fits that, as does RFC 6333. The
>>> solution details are just that - details.
>>
>> The devil is in details.
>>
>> Too bad 4rd wasn't invented before DS-lite. It would have better deserved
>> the "lite" qualifier, but that's not how things happened.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> I do hope this discussion will now stop: there are so many technical
>> "details" that need to reach common understanding, and agreement.
>> In any case thank you for the really interesting explanation on history.
>>
>> Cheers.
>> RD
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
