[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: draft-v6ops-van-beijnum-mnat-pt-00.txt
On 13 feb 2008, at 14:58, Rémi Després wrote:
2. On several points, I believe that simplifications are possible.
I would really like to have a in depth discussion with you in
Philadelphia.
I'll be there the whole week, let me know when you want to sit down
for a more detailed discussion. I have no idea about Brian's
availability, though. :-)
One of the items would be a better understanding of why mapped
addresses have been avoided in your proposal.
Because some people REALLY don't want to see them on the wire and also
because it could be confusing to have the same address block used for
two different purposes depending on the presence of native IPv4
connetivity. I'm not even sure anycasting is going to fly, anyway,
though.
Another item would be where checksum adjustment best fits.
Let me know if you have any ideas about that.
3. Another essential transition configuration is that of a v4 host
in a site which has a v6 prefix but no v4 public address.
This is the NATv4v6v4 of Alain Durand in http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-durand-v6ops-natv4v6v4-00.txt)
.
I have a proposal in the pipe for this , but very little time to
finalize an I-D.
Still hope to have it before the deadline.
It has various relationships with MNAT-PT and SHANTI.
I had stuff for this in the previous version of the draft:
http://www.muada.com/drafts/draft-van-beijnum-modified-nat-pt-02.txt
However, I removed it, because it makes the whole draft longer and
this mechanism can be added later without any changes to MNAT-PT
translators so there's no real need to specify it now.