2012/3/16 Rémi Després <[email protected]> > > 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. >
"a white horse is not a horse. " - ancient Chinese proverb. ;-) anyway i won't be stubborn on this anymore. :) > 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). > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires/current/msg03626.html i don't think that's only a replicate of our previous discussion. even if so, i guess this is the first time in the mail list. regards, maoke > > > "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
