Dear Simon, >>> A consequence is that the 4rd address >>> scheme does not need to care about checksum neutrality (contrary to e.g. >>> NAT64 >>> and NAT66). >> >> Sorry, but I don't understand this. Can you please paraphrase? > > Please refer to: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6052#section-4.1 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6296#section-2.6
Please correct me if I am wrong: - The RFC 6145-compliant stateless NAT64 solutions do not have to recalculate transport-layer checksums if and only if the Well-Known Prefix or a checksum-neutral Network-Specific Prefix is used and if the suffix is 0. - All double stateless NAT64 solutions (dIVI, 4via6-T), since they can not have checksum-neutral IPv6 addresses (because they also encode port-set ID) MUST recalculate transport-layer checksums or else they are not RFC 6145-compliant. So are you saying, that it is OK if we choose to not recalculate checksums (and therefore violate RFC 6145) in case we are sure, that there will be no transport-layer processing between the CPE and AFTR in double stateless NAT64 scenarios? Thanks, Nejc _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
