Le 2012-02-02 à 05:20, Maoke a écrit : > > 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; No misunderstanding on this. > 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; Full transparency, based on clear theory, remains AFAIK better than "good enough" based on some collected statistic at a given time. > 3. carrying ICMPv4 directly in IPv6 payload will be a harmful idea and less > feasible. I don't see where you see that ICMPv4 payload tunneled in a mapped header isn't easily feasible. Stating it is harmful is of course not a proof. Discussion on this point can continue with more details in other e-amils based on configurations you have in mind. RD > 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
