在 2012年4月3日 上午9:21，Maoke <[email protected]>写道：
> dear Remi, > > 1. for this issue, you are in misunderstanding. > > i checked the RFC6145 logic and behavior, very carefully, with the PTB < > 1280 issue. there is no two behaviors but only one behavior supporting > independent working of the IPv4-to-IPv6 and the IPv6-to-IPv4 translators. > there is no question on which one to choose in the MAP-T draft. (i think > you may accept that a "if...else..." logic does not mean option). > > 2. it is necessary to verify, in practice, if the feature that IPv6 is > carrying ICMPv4 message is secure. it is new to the IP/ICMP architecture. > > 3. please refer to RFC6145 Sec 6 for the details (but maybe other sections > are also needed to read). > > i think your objection to RFC6145 and MAP-T here is invalid. > > regards, > maoke > > 2012/4/3 Rémi Després <[email protected]> > >> Hi, Guoliang, >> >> Interesting enough, the example you give illustrates that MAP-T needs to >> remain experimental, more than any other solution. >> > concluding above of my points, here your assert "MAP-T needs to remain experimental" is invalid. - maoke
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
