[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: WGLC ent-analysis-03: DSTM

To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: WGLC ent-analysis-03: DSTM
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:02:58 +0100
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0508291010330.20798@netcore.fi>
Mail-followup-to: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
References: <200508250910.j7P9ADJQ033156@givry.rennes.enst-bretagne.fr> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0508291010330.20798@netcore.fi>
User-agent: Mutt/1.4i

On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 10:34:39AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
> 
> I don't think the purpose of any v6ops document is solve problems in 
> one's *v4* network by *v4* mechanisms, so it's not entirely clear if 
> the mechanism is in the scope of this WG.

If you deplay a v6-only network infrastructure then v4 transport is a 'v6
problem'.   I guess he crux of your argument is
a) why not run dual stack, even with v4+NAT
b) why can't apps be updated to use IPv6

Tim

Follow-Ups:
- Re: WGLC ent-analysis-03: DSTM
  - From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>

References:
- Re: WGLC ent-analysis-03: DSTM
  - From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr>
- Re: WGLC ent-analysis-03: DSTM
  - From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>

Prev by Date: Re: WGLC ent-analysis-03: DSTM
Next by Date: Re: WGLC ent-analysis-03: DSTM
Previous by thread: Re: WGLC ent-analysis-03: DSTM
Next by thread: Re: WGLC ent-analysis-03: DSTM
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread