2012-03-16 02:07, Maoke:
>
> on the other hand, may i suggest not to term "4rd tunnel" anymore? it
> confuses. i emphasized it is NOT a TUNNEL to the common understanding at all
A "4rd" tunnel isn't "any" tunnel.
It is only that which is defined by the 4rd-u specification.
> (but it seems you never?seldom respond to this point, nor to the ICMP issue
> details. ) - maoke
Having already answered (see just below), and having received so far no
reaction on this subject, I don't think I should have done more.
Your complaining about my insufficiently answering is therefore undeserved
(IMHO).
Please restate the ICMP issue you still have in mind.
I will try to answer (as usual).
"2012-03-09 09:49, Rémi Després :
>> ...
>> i don't incline to use the term "tunneling" since tunnel could have a
>> variety of forms, among which encapsulation is one but not the only one.
>
> Exactly: 4rd uses header-mapping tunnels, and MAP-E uses encapsulation
> tunnels."
The fact is that there is no noticeable difference, e2e, between:
- IPv4 packets that are only natively routed
- IPv4 packets that are tunneled on their way any number of times (be it with
4rd tunnels or any other tunnels).
We have, I think, more important subjects to debate.
RD
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
