On Thu, 30 Jun 2011, Fernando Gont wrote:
My point was that, except for the mechanism for PD, I don't see a substantial difference here that would e.g. prevent this from being developed for IPv4 (in addition to IPv6). -- Yes, I know we need to deploy IPv6... but I don't think you can expect people to get rid of their *working* IPv4 devices... (i.e., not sure why any of this functionality should be v6-only)
Chaining NAT boxes already work. I also feel that we shouldn't put in a lot of work to develop IPv4 further, that focus should be put on IPv6.
I think this deserves a problem statement that clearly describes what we expect to be able to do (but currently can't), etc. And, if this is meant to be v6-only, state why v4 is excluded -- unless we're happy to have people connect their IPv4-devices, and see that they cannot communicate anymore.
IPv4 should be excluded because it's a dead end, and we all know it. We're just disagreeing when it's going to die and how.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@xxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf