2012-04-04 12:39, Maoke : ... > 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.
Maoke, You lost me! - My assertion is that, in 4rd-u-06, none of the identified flaws is "effective in real-world". - You then answer that (in your opinion) the DF=MF=1 issue, which is *a MAP-T-limitation issue*, isn't effective in real world. - I don't share this opinion, in particular because a Murphy's law says that what can fail will fail, BUT ABOVE ALL this isn't the subject: the subject is only alleged flaws of 4rd-U. Regards, RD > > > 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
