Hi, Remi, This is beyond the charter of softwire WG, changing IPv6 address format needs much broad discussion in IETF community to understand its impact first, before we should even discuss if it is valid to design something like this in softwire. Have you done that ?
Best Regards, Kevin Yin On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Guanghui Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Yiu > > 4rd-u changes the IPv6 header architecture (redefine > fragmentation header extension) and IPv6 address architecture (different > meaning of u-bit when g-bit=1). These are the fundamental changes. If 4rd-u > becomes the standard, then there will be new defined “IPv6” packets on > the Internet, which are not compatible with existing IPv6 packets and > no existing devices can understand those packets. > > > Yu Guanghui <ygh at dlut.edu.cn> > Network and Information Center > Dalian University of Technology, China > > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Lee, Yiu <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hi Guanghui, >> >> I agree that both MAP and 4rd-u are similar technology and solving the >> same problem. From technical perspective, can you elaborate this a lithe >> bit? >> >> Thanks, >> Yiu >> >> From: Guanghui Yu <[email protected]> >> Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 20:26:40 +0800 >> To: Softwires WG <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [Softwires] Path to move forward with 4rd… >> >> I read 4rd-u draft and found it is flawed. >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
