Em 09/04/12 04:56, Sheng Jiang escreveu: > Giving time, both solution can be mature enough for operations. IETF > does not have to choose one by now. And, these two solutions are not > necessary to be a same pace.
IMHO the problem is that we don't have time. We have to consider that some ISPs are already committing themselves with NAT444, or other CGNs, for the transition. A transition based on A+P could be a better choice, but we have to have a real option to do that in a very short time. I think that it is the time to focus on one solution. If the decision is further delayed, it could be useless, because operators will have followed other paths, without even considering A+P. It seems to me that there is no more time to decide upon the ideal solution. We have to go with a choice already tested, with running code, proven to be good enough and workable, and it happens to be MAP. The perfect is the enemy of the good. Moreiras. _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
