On 03/28/12 12:50, Maoke wrote:
Yup. RFC 6052 section 4.do you mean the following paragraph:
No. See my response to Ole.
1. as a stateless address mapping, RFC6052 doesn't assumes any stateful NAT64 is also required to use checksum-neutral address -- liberal to others
Not sure what you mean. Agree that checksum neutrality does not help stateful NAT64. I'm talking about stateless NAT64.
2. as a operational option, RFC6052 considers having checksum-neutrality through, e.g., choosing proper prefix if possible -- conservative to itself
Yes.
3. comparing with RFC6145, the latter doesn't assume there MUST be a checksum-neutral address but keep adjusting L4 checksum -- conservative to itself
Yes. Checksum neutrality still rocks. ;) Simon -- DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca NAT64/DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca STUN/TURN server --> http://numb.viagenie.ca _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
