Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-pb-statement-req-00 - are changes in dualstack hosts acceptable or not?

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>]

On 2008-07-26 04:20, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
> Rémi Denis-Courmont escribió:
>> 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.
>>   
> 
> do you think it is acceptable to require some manual configuration in
> them to make them work?

I think we need to follow the 'first, do no harm' principle
to get this right in the requirements. In other words, the
situation MUST be no worse for unmodified RFC2460/3484 hosts
than it is today. Of course it may be better - otherwise we
wouldn't be here at all. If that requires configuration, it
seems OK to me. After all, we have to be realistic.

    Brian