> If you would have a detailed scenario where ANY transparency difference could > be noticeable e2e between a MAP-E tunnel and a 4rd-U tunnel, this sentence > would be fair. > However, you haven't shown such a scenario, and AFAIK you can't have one > because it doesn't exist. > The above assertion, being wrong, is therefore misleading.
there is more to this than comparing the IPv4 packet put into to the 4rd-U cloud against the packet exiting the 4rd-U cloud. (from that perspective MAP-T and 4rd-U are for most practical solutions equal (IMHO)). 1) MAP-E supports independence of IPv4 and IPv6 addressing. by using hub and spoke mode with a separate mapping rule per subscriber. in this mode e.g only ports could be embedded in the address. this is not possible in a translation solution like 4rd-U. 2) a node inside the network will treat translated packets different from encapsulated ones. e.g. for the purposes of counting or for applying features. for an encapsulated packet both the complete IPv4 datagram and the IPv6 header is available, and different features can be applied to both. Ole _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
