Re: 6to4 vs forwarding IP proto41 in NAT

["Rute C. Sofia" <rsofia@seas.upenn.edu>]

Jordi,


> This is exactly what I already reflected in the new version of the draft.
>
> I will wait for more inputs before publish it.


I understand the point of your document, but really do not see a place for
it... It's not so much a question of the "mechanism" (it is here; it is
used
sometimes), but really, a question of the purpose of the document.
There has to be a clear purpose (and maybe I'm missing it), otherwise,
we just end up adding more entropy...Can you please answer clearly the
following questions:

1) does the document introduce a *significant* contribution to current
deployment status?
2) if something should be forced to vendors, that should be either ipv6 or
6to4 ;-). Why impose a third option, given that only a subset of scenarios
will *possibly* gain with it ??

And, a bit out of scope in technical terms...out of curiosity, if you
already have an "updated" version of the draft (updated in which sense??),
why didn't you present it yesterday?

thanks,
rute