Le 2012-02-08 à 19:39, Lee, Yiu a écrit : > Hi Remi, > > I know this is possible to do, in theory. However my question is more > toward manageability of the network. IMHO, layering one tunnel (or > translation) protocol on another tunnel protocol is asking for trouble.
No obligation to do it, of course. Noting that it is possible doesn't hurt though. Personally, I find it legitimate to be careful before pretending to offer more service than before, but I don't see which trouble would result from IPv6 (with IPv4 embedded addresses) encapsulated in IPv4 (with RFC1918 addresses). Cheers, RD > > Cheers, > /Yiu > > On 2/8/12 2:13 AM, "Rémi Després" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 6rd can be deployed over Net-10 networks (RFC1918) to deployIPv6. >> Shared public IPv4 addresses can then be offered to customers via this >> IPv6. >> Such a use case, based on the header-mappiong variant of 4rd-U rather >> than on a double MAP encapsulation, is described in >> tools.ietf.org/html/draft-despres-softwire-4rd-u-03#section-5.4. >> >> RD >> > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
