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

Re: Translation versus tunneling document

To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Translation versus tunneling document
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:12:39 -0800
Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>, jordi.palet@consulintel.es, v6ops@ops.ietf.org
In-reply-to: <475AF1BC.9050508@gmail.com>
References: <C37DE595.1B0B3D%jordi.palet@consulintel.es> <E094B7FF-6C42-469B-BBF7-1EEAB4029726@muada.com> <475AF1BC.9050508@gmail.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On Dec 8, 2007, at 11:34 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

I think you also have to consider whether there's something totunnel *to* - is there a significantly large class of dual stackservices that will be able to make use of tunnels?

since we're talking about a service provider environment (in Alain'scase), he can ensure that there is one. Alain chairs Softwires, andSoftwires is standardizing both provider-provisioned capabilitiesbased on MPLS and cpe-provisioned capabilities in which the providermight include in the same DHCP message that provisions the hold IPv6prefix the address of a party to tunnel IPv4 traffic to.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFHXcfnbjEdbHIsm0MRAmi3AKCloHwRqPdsKRFXO+u5NnSMCni2lQCgzJTA
+rY3wb6qxRcrZos5FbqKdUQ=
=5oWi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

References:
- Translation versus tunneling document
  - From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
- Re: Translation versus tunneling document
  - From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
- Re: Translation versus tunneling document
  - From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Translation versus tunneling document
Next by Date: Re: Translation versus tunneling document
Previous by thread: Re: Translation versus tunneling document
Next by thread: RE: Translation versus tunneling document
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread