On 2 April 2012 15:46, Rémi Després <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Le 2012-04-02 à 12:33, Ole Trøan a écrit : > > >> 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 > > Are you furtively suggesting that 4rd-U has all limitations of a real > double translation solution like MAP-T? > That mays sound tactically smart, but isn't justified by facts. > Woj> Well, in terms of facts we have 1. 4rd-U does not supporting single translation mode, or if it does then is requires NAT64/BIH/Something else. (How anybody thinks that deploying 4rd-u + "something" else is manageable is a mystery) 2. 4rd-u is incompatible with NAT64 use or deployment 2. MAP solution (call it MAP, divi, or other variants) has proven deployment 3. Any operator who runs NAT64 today is a proof point that 4rd-U solves problems that are non-issues to operators. 4. 4rd-u changes the basic structure/use of the v6 header, which is a change to IPv6 that needs to be vetted by 6man, etc. Creating such "novel" (bogus?) IPv6 packets, that no regular IPv6 host today will recognize and use, effectively creates a new IPv6 protocol sub-class. Indeed 4rd-u deserves an "experimental" status track, more than anything. -Wojciech.
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
