> you don't see it a problem because you reject the common understanding about > "tunnel" as a virtual link, but define the so-called 4rd-tunnel. it has been > admitted by your statement that "4rd tunnel is not any tunnel". my > understanding here is "4rd tunnel" is ACTUALLY another path section of > translation, according to its behavior. if you would say "4rd-U is a > translation solution alternative to RFC6145 providing better transparency in > double-translation environment with some cost and uncertain risk", i would > totally accept without any further argument. >
+1. 4rd-U has been considered as a translation mechanism to me (with better transparency). Thanks, washam _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
