On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Maoke <[email protected]> wrote: > > 2012/4/12 Behcet Sarikaya <[email protected]> >> >> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Maoke <[email protected]> wrote: >> > hi Yiu, >> > >> > sorry but i just found i missed a technical issue you left in this >> > message. >> > >> > 2012/4/9 Lee, Yiu <[email protected]> >> > >> >> >> >> 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. >> >>
[Behcet] So you see MAP as a single protocol and say that the operator can start with either one and then change it to the other one? Then you negate yourself saying that it may not be so easy. My simple argument then is why not start with three as some people suggested and interchange between the three? All these three are different flavors of the 4rd protocol. Somehow you don't like to hear the words 4rd. _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
