[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-pb-statement-req-00 - are changes in dualstack hosts acceptable or not?
Hi,
I have a general problem here that I do not fully understand: why _a_solution_ should not require changes for IPv6-only or dual-stack host, _if_ that gives better functionality than _a_solution_ that does not require changes? We are not limited to single solution on this problem space, right?
We have number of dual-stack implementations out there for which solutions that do not require changes are very desirable.
We also have a large number of to-be-deployed devices in the pipeline, which still can be modified in any ways seen useful. I argue that this number is far larger than the number of already deployed devices, and that this number of devices should not have suboptimal functionality just because we do not want to touch to already deployed v6-capable hosts.
IPv6 deployment is anyhow just beginning.
Best regards,
Teemu
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
>[mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Rémi Denis-Courmont
>Sent: 25 July, 2008 19:11
>To: marcelo bagnulo braun
>Cc: Jari Arkko; Dave Thaler; 'IPv6 Operations'; Brian E Carpenter
>Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-pb-statement-req-00 - are
>changes in dualstack hosts acceptable or not?
>
>Le vendredi 25 juillet 2008 18:01:38 marcelo bagnulo braun,
>vous avez écrit :
>> Now, the nice thing about requirements is that when you read
>them into
>> detail, they can be interpreted in both ways.
>
>No. A dual-stack host is NOT a v4-only host. If you read the
>requirements to the letter, nothing excludes changes to
>dual-stack nodes. But I humbly think the real question is not
>what the current requirements say.
>
>> So, the question is: is a dual stack host a v6 host (i.e. changes are
>> acceptable) or is it a v4 host (i.e. changes are not acceptable)?
>
>Regardless of the current requirements, I would argue it is
>not acceptable that dual-stack nodes need to be modified, for
>the exact same reason as it is not acceptable that IPv4-only
>nodes need to be modified: deployment would be highly impractical.
>
>--
>Rémi Denis-Courmont
>http://www.remlab.net/
>
>