Sent from my iPad
On Feb 16, 2012, at 5:21 AM, "Maoke" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: 2012/2/16 Lee, Yiu <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Hi Maoke, There are always trade-offs. We can suggest few options and ask the WG to choose one. good point. acceptable. :) - maoke 1) Let the host to reassemble the fragmented packets 2) Let the 4o6 TC to assemble the fragmented packets 2) may be easier. 3) Don’t suggest anything and leave this open for implementation /Yiu From: Maoke <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 11:50:33 +0900 To: "Yiu L. LEE" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Cc: Qiong <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, "[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Subject: Re: [Softwires] [softwire] Merged version of lightweight 4over6 the "since we believe" is true in the term that client/server model is dominating the Internet usage. but the situation is changing, AFTR might suffer a heavy burden with reassembly in the environment where p2p is dominating. can we (actually you authors) surely state lightweight 4over6 improves this? if we can, it is a happy point. ;-)
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
