于 2012/4/2 19:13, Ole Trøan 写道:
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.
I choose MAP and fully believe in A+P, based on the operation
experiences of the large IPv6-only network - CERNET2.
Regards,
xing
cheers,
Ole
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
