2012/4/4 Rémi Després <[email protected]> > > Le 2012-04-04 à 08:04, Maoke a écrit : > > dear Remi, > > 2012/4/2 Rémi Després <[email protected]> > >> Hi, Congxiao, >> >> During the Softwire meeting, you came to the mike to assert that the >> 4rd-U specification was known to have "flaws". >> >> Yet, you do know that the 4rd-U specification has been reviewed by >> competent contributors of widely varied origin, with no identified flaw >> left in the draft. >> > > the "with no identified flaw left in the draft" is only your statement > instead of the conclusion of the competent contributors. > > > a) I believe that all co-authors of the 4rd-U proposal are competent > contributors. > b) They did review the specification, and so far don't find any of the the > alleged flaws. > There is nothing more intended in my statement above. >
well, sorry but i supposed i was one of the competent contributors despite i am not an author. :P > > Even after the last mail exchanges, and although some others think > differently, I honestly think that none of the alleged 4rd-u flaws is > effective in real world, and that any of these would prevent 4rd-U > deployments to be useful and flawless. > > "not effective in real world" must be verified in practices. as we have pointed out "DF=1/MF=1" is not effective in the real world and we have the statistics from multiple sources. regards, maoke > Regards, > RD > > > > > if the draft -06 or -07 limits the scope of 4rd-u with at least the > following constrainsts, i guess it could be better with less flaws. > - the domain having IPv6 firewalls or filters or IP/ICMP integrity > varification mechanism between CE and BR is out of scope > - the domain having IPv6 dynamic routing ttl-security mechanism is out of > scope > - simultaneously supporting single translation with using IPv4-mapped > address for native IPv6-only networks/nodes is out of scope > - supporting L4 protocol that not yet supported by NAT44 is out of scope > (even for the case where NAT44 is bypassed, like 1:1 address mapping) > - the IPv4 option transparency is out of scope, even for temporary > end-to-end usage for some reason like experiments. > > were 4rd-u-06 updated with the above constraints, it is still have some > technical inconsistency. i'd love to point them out when i have seen the > scope clarification made by the authors. because the problem impact would > change when the scope is changed. (well, it is another problem if people > would like to have such a so-limited stuff) > > >> Since you have AFAIK made no previous contribution on the mailing list to >> justify such an assertion, would you be kind enough to explain what, in >> your understanding, wouldn't work in 4rd-U? >> >> Without that, your statement might be understood as an attempt at biasing >> people's understanding just before a vote (which I suppose you didn't want). >> > > one doesn't write too much in cockfighting mails != he/she doesn't think, > listen, and analyze. on the other hand, i understand the statement (no > matter oral or written) in the venue is also considered as IETF > contribution. > > do you think your statement on "no identified flaws left", ignoring the > fact that competent contributors keep arguing, is not an attempt at biasing > people's understanding in the venue? > > - maoke > > >> >> Thanks, >> RD >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Softwires mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >> > > >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
