People on the list might get the impression that Rene is single-handedly
holding up WG progress. I have not been involved in this work, but did
observe at the meeting a show of hands for 4rd-U at least as numerous as
that for MAP. For whatever reason, the WG at large does not seem
prepared to commit to a single solution.
On 02/04/2012 11:17 AM, Wojciech Dec wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
