On 11/29/11 7:47 PM, Ole Troan wrote:
Remi,
to summarize my view: - the 4rd-u proposal (including the changes you
plan) are well understood - the main ideas from 4rd-* are already
incorporated into MAP - 4rd-u is a slightly different way of doing
translation (calling mapping doesn't change that fact) go to behave
to argue if yours is better than what was specified there. - I think
it is the wrong thing for this working group to encourage development
of yet another solution, when we already have many. - I would also
like to see one solution, my choice is encapsulation. given that all
the building blocks already exist, I would expect we'll see
translation in the wild too, whatever we choose to do in the IETF.
ref: NAT464.
+1
You nailed it.
Best, Jan Zorz
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
