Re: WGLC ent-analysis-03: DSTM

[Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr>]

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   > => NAT is not a general solution: it doesn't work with embedded addresses.
   > So you have no real counter-argument.
   
   Yes, it doesn't work, but what I'm asking here is a reality check.
   
=> sorry but I am tired to discuss about this topics. You don't want
to consider cases where NATs cannot be used or where people don't want
to use NATs, and this point is obviously NOT in the scope of the WG.

   > => the purpose of the v6ops document is to help to solve problems,
   > not to enforce something. So as the previous scenario is credible
   > DTSM (i.e. c)) has to be referenced.
   
   I don't think the purpose of any v6ops document is solve problems in 
   one's *v4* network by *v4* mechanisms,

=> DSTM is not a *v4* mechanism.

   so it's not entirely clear if the mechanism is in the scope of this WG.
   
=> DSTM and relevant scenarios are, this discussion is not.

   I'm not sure I understand the implementation well enough to say 
   whether that would work or not

=> it works even the implementation way I discribed works only for
some kernels (for other kernels the PCB table has to be scanned
for instance because routes are not referenced by PCBs).
Do you claim that DSTM is not implementable?
   
Regards

Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr

PS: this is my final message about the topics.