On 4/9/12 9:24 AM, Maoke wrote:
hi Yiu and others,1. "both published" does surely conflict with the design goal of 4rd-U itself: unification of multiple standards. politically speaking, the 4rd-u authors' positition is now quite confusing. 2. operators surely need to choose IPv6 transition mechanisms but such a choice is based on their demand and understanding to the existing and well-tested, well-practiced building blocks. i don't think any operators are waiting for an option of choice they never see and never understand. and the "enough technical supports" is now still "a check without signature". i do suggest the 4rd-u authors and supporters say that after making something real. on the other hand, 4rd-u makes a tight coupling between the address format and its own header mapping mechanism. this makes an operator unable to have different choices of transition mechanism as long as it chooses 4rd-u. if you concern the choice of IPv6 transition mechanism, i do recommend MAP, as either encapsulation or translation is operatable with MAP address/port mapping without difficulty.
+1 Agree. Cheers, Jan _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
