Dear Med, As an extension to DS-Lite, Public 4over6 can support intercommunications between nodes within the same domain with public IPv4 address assigned. However, address sharing transition mechanism can't do that, i.e. two nodes sharing the same address aren't able to communicate directly.
What's more, Public 4over6 CE, which uses a full IPv4 address, can work as a server that is IPv4-globally reachable by the nodes outside the domain. This is of great importance to ICP-side transition. In this case, address sharing is not expected. In general, there are major differences between pb4o6 and lw4o6. If we put them together, some important features (as listed above) may be lost. The mechanism can be confused on some functionality, like intercommunications within a domain. I think public 4over6 is mature enough to move forward. Best Regards, Qi On 2012-12-17, at 下午4:54, <[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Suresh, all, > > With all due respect to the authors of this draft, I really think this > document should not move forward. > > The feature described in this draft can be easily integrated in the current > unified CPE effort (binding mode: MAP1:1/Lw4over6) or the document needs to > be extended to cover the port restriction feature. > > Cheers, > Med > >> -----Message d'origine----- >> De : [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] De la part de Suresh Krishnan >> Envoyé : lundi 17 décembre 2012 05:34 >> À : Softwires WG >> Cc : Yong Cui; Ralph Droms >> Objet : [Softwires] Second working group last call for >> draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-04 >> >> Hi all, >> This message starts a second softwire working group last call on >> advancing the draft about providing Public IPv4 over IPv6 >> Access Network >> as a Standards Track RFC. The authors believe that this version has >> addressed the issues raised during the previous WGLC. The draft >> is available at >> >> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-04.txt >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-04 >> >> Substantive comments and statements of support/opposition for advancing >> this document should be directed to the mailing list. Editorial >> suggestions can be sent directly to the authors. The chairs >> will send in >> their comments as well during the last call period. This last call will >> conclude on January 4, 2013. >> >> Regards, >> Suresh & Yong >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Softwires mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >> > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
