2012/2/2 Rémi Després <[email protected]> > > Except for the fact that double RF46145 is replaced by the self-contained > Header mapping variant, more transparent, but about which there is an > ongoing discussion with Maoke, the last 4rd-U draft is, in my > understanding, largely what you are looking for. >
briefly summary my action and understanding in order to avoid confusion. 1. my detailed re-study on RFC6145 behavior in double translation has been finished and i have NO new protocol or algorithm proposal which is worthy sharing to the community; 2. (because) RFC6145 has provided (not thorough but) good enough transparency when used in double translation, and accordingly it is NOT needed to be updated; 3. carrying ICMPv4 directly in IPv6 payload will be a harmful idea and less feasible. basically i doubt it is significant enough to make a document explaining the RFC6145 behavior in double-translation, as well as the corresponding concerns. however, if some people would like to have such an informational document, i'd love to elaborate. - maoke
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
