On Apr 2, 2012, at 12:44 , Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote: > On 4/2/12 12:33 PM, Ole Trøan wrote: >> 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. ;-) > > So, if we deprecate RFC6346 and with that the whole A+P idea - is that > solving anything? Really?
- less IPv4 exit mechanisms to implement and choose among. that must be good, no? (currently there are at least 4 mechanisms proposed in the A+P H&S and mesh space) - large stateful boxes in the SP network; we know how to build them, and we can charge more for them. that's a good thing too, no? ;-) > I'm also really tempted to do that if this community can't decide what to do > in a quick time manner, showing the industry the path forward. yes, if there was a path forward I would also be a lot less despondent with regards to A+P. cheers, Ole _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
