2012/3/28 Simon Perreault <[email protected]> > 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. ;)
i am not against that checksum neutrality is useful but i don't think it it wise to write it into a standard, forcing others doing. on the other hand, even we write it in, we'd better not to have it as a reason for disabling the L4-checksum adjustment. using CNP to REPLACE L4-checksum adjustment is a wrong direction. it is good to have a checksum-neutral address format, if situation allows, as a deployment option, rather than a mandatory element in standard. because it can only play the role of a complement in some cases. that's my point. hope it clarifies. ;-) - maoke > > > 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
