Marcello.However strange it may seem, I now put the APBP approach in stanby, probably to finally simply give it up.
Reasons:- The tunnel-to-NAT44 approach is IMHO so advanced, and probably "good enough", so that the work on APBP, even if pertinent, would arrive too late. - Some server applications are reported to require that related TCP connections do have the same client IP address. This conflicts with the possible load balancing between several APBP servers, one of their nice scalability features. - Some of the underlying concepts of APBP may be better applied in a different context (a combination of multi-homing and IPv6 private addressing, but this is another story, not related to your draft).
I therefore no longer suggest that having APBP mentioned in your next version(s) is desirable.
In any case thanks for your openness to reflect received comments on it. Regards. Rémi marcelo bagnulo braun - Le 6/19/08 7:59 PM :
In the next version, i will try to reflect the received comments indeed
Rémi Després escribió:
Please remember what Teemu Savolainen wrote to you in http://psg.com/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2008/msg00800.html
Also you can note what Brian Carpenter answered to Iljitsch van Beijnum, in http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2008/msg00876.html