New version, after a discussion with Ole: +----+--------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | | Feature (based on CURRENT drafts) | MAP | MAP | 4rd | 4rd | | | | -T | -E | -H | -E | +----+--------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+ | 1 | Full Transparency to IPv4 DF bit | N | Y | Y | Y | | | | | | | | | 2 | ISP can impose a Tunnel traffic | N | Y | Y | Y | | | class | | | | | | | | | | | | | 3 | Possible support of CEs behind | N | N | Y | Y | | | third-party CPEs | | | | | | | | | | | | | 4 | IPv6 port-based ACLs work for IPv4 | Y | N | Y | N | | | packets | | | | | | | | | | | | | 5 | IPv6 web caches work for IPv4 | Y | N | Y | N | | | packets | | | | | | | | | | | | | 6 | No constraint on host addresses or | N | N | Y | Y | | | subnet prefixes in CE sites (V-octet | | | | | | | format) | | | | | | | | | | | | | 7 | Number of excluded ports is flexible | Y | Y | N | N | | | (GMA algorithm, 2 parameters) | | | | | | | | | | | | | 8 | Possible migration from DS routing | N | N | Y | Y | | | to IPv6-only routing without | | | | | | | changing CE addresses and/or | | | | | | | prefixes (DMR may apply to CEs) | | | | | | | | | | | | | 9 | BRs need no change for any new | N | N | Y | Y | | | protocol having ports at their usual | | | | | | | place and TCP-like checksum | | | | | | | (checksum neutrality) | | | | | | | | | | | | | 10 | IPv4-options supported | N | Y | N | N | | | | | | | | | 11 | Datagram reassembly avoided in BRs | N | N | Y | Y | | | | | | | | | 12 | Packet IDs from shared-address CEs | N | Y | Y | Y | | | cannot be confused in destinations | | | | | | | | | | | | | 13 | The number of rules CEs must be able | N | N | Y | Y | | | to support is defined | | | | | | | | | | | | | 14 | Minimum IP header length | 40 | 60 | 48 | 60 | +----+--------------------------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
