Me too. And another comment:
In sd-nat, it says "More importantly, that draft (lightweight 4over6) does not explain how this solution can be deployed in a regular DS-Lite environment." I think this is a deployment issue and lightweight 4over6 can definitely be deployed in a regular DS-Lite environment. We have run a "Coexistent test with DS-Lite" (refer to http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite-04.txt in Appendix 1.3). It would be very easy and simple. Thoughts? Best wishes Qiong On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Lee, Yiu <yiu_...@cable.comcast.com>wrote: > I am a little lost. Let's put the double-nat aside for a moment. Except > the fact that sd-nat uses icmp for port-set provisioning, what else > different between Lightweight 4over6 vs. sd-nat? Am I missing something? > For Lightweight 4over6, we can use anycast for redundancy. I fail to see > what sd-nat does more than Lightweight 4over6. > > /Yiu > > > On 3/14/12 8:47 AM, "mohamed.boucad...@orange.com" > <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> wrote: > > >Med: But the question is why ICMP-based method is needed? Why not using > >port-restricted DHCPv4 options for instance? > > > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
