[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: draft-v6ops-van-beijnum-mnat-pt-00.txt
Iljitsch van Beijnum a écrit :
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. :-)
I will contact you when the detailed program is available.
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
Technical reasons should be known for the debate to progress.
because it could be confusing to have the same address block used for
two different purposes depending on the presence of native IPv4
connetivity.
Unclear to me wo far.
Another item would be where checksum adjustment best fits.
Let me know if you have any ideas about that.
When a address is replaced by another, adjusting the checksum is simple.
Using ad hoc values in prefixes in order to keep the checksum change to
zero seems to me more complex than needed.
It may prevent other uses of prefix fields, that may be more useful.
Rémi