On Apr 2, 2012 4:13 AM, "Ole Trøan" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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? ;-) >
Do you have data? Or are you perpetuating the myth that stateless is cheaper? Last I checked stateless requires some heavy duty provisioning systems and less efficient static allocation of expensive ipv4 addresses > > 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. > I ietf has seldom shown the path forward. In this particular context ....especially so. > 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 > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
