Hi Omar, > Your feedback will be appreciated for the submitted version of the IPmix > I-D.
I couldn't see any substantial changes, so there are still the same issues with this proposal: - The draft states: "It solves the issue of allowing IPv6 only hosts to communicate to IPv4 only hosts and vice versa in a simple and very efficient way." => This is simply wrong: "IPv4 only" and "IPv6 only" hosts would not be able to speak IPmix by definition of "only". This is a fundamental contradiction in your proposal. If an IPv4 host would be upgraded with IPmix, there is no reason to not let it upgrade to IPv6 and be it a dual stack host. Problem solved. - Introducing something like IPmix would be more difficult than simply deploying IPv6. - IPv4 only hosts would never be able to reach the whole IPv6 address space - For IPv6 only hosts we have NAT64/DNS64 to let them talk to the IPv4 world All these issues have been mentioned before. If you don't consider them, don't expect any more comments. BTW: There are still remnants of IPv.. in the document (sections 4.2 and 7). Please remove them in any future versions as it will confuse people outside the IETF. Regards Roland _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
