> If this is to say that until a BOF is started, you will keep your > objection(s) unknown, I continue to take it as a lack of identified > objections.
the objections I'm aware of are: - people are uncomfortable with only a double translation solution * injection of IPv4 routes into IPv6 * transparency * hard to identify IPv4 traffic in the "core" * higher risk of leakage. i.e single translation / packets outside the domain (all these apply equally to MAP-T btw) - redefining the modified EUI-64 format (V-octet) and the consequences standardization wise of that - overloading information in the fragment header (please don't respond to these, FYI only. I'm on Easter holiday.) if it wasn't for my general "uncomfortableness" with double-translation I'd could be convinced that a single solution was possible. the status quo; with no path forward just means that we'll effectively kill A+P. I would certainly not recommend my product managers to implement either of this given the risk. is there consensus to abandon these efforts (which is basically what we do by publishing them as experimental anyway)? the alternatives we have are perfectly fine: - Shared IPv4 address over IPv4 transport -> NAT444 / CGN - Shared IPv4 address over IPv6 transport -> 464XLAT / DS-lite - Full IPv4 address over IPv6 transport -> DS-lite with Public IPv4 address problem solved. ;-) cheers, Ole _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
