> tunneling). It may be that the recommendation is specifically against > *stateful* double translation That may be reasonable. And the document may reflect that. > > > IETF recommends using dual-stack or tunneling based solutions for > > > IPv6 transition and specifically recommends against deployments > > > utilizing double protocol translation. Use of BIH together with a > > > NAT64 is NOT RECOMMENDED [RFC6180]. One could suggest rephrasing that para with something like this - This document doesn't recommend using BIH together with NAT64 [RFC6180]. Of course, the adoption of this or any solution (e.g dual-stack and/or any solution that eases the path to IPv6 (and accommodate residual IPv4)) would be subjected to the overall cost-effectiveness, as determined by operators per their environments/constraints. Cheers, Rajiv > -----Original Message----- > From: softwires-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:softwires-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf > Of teemu.savolainen@xxxxxxxxx > Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 11:20 AM > To: satoru.matsushima@xxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Cc: softwires@xxxxxxxx; behave@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [Softwires] [BEHAVE] Last Call:<draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih- > 06.txt> (Dual Stack Hosts Using"Bump-in-the-Host" (BIH)) to Proposed Standard > > Please note that this statement was included after quite long and heated > discussion in behave WG and because it came clear that IETF recommendation > is against double protocol translation (in favor of dual-stack and > tunneling). It may be that the recommendation is specifically against > *stateful* double translation (although that was not said aloud, if I recall > correctly). > > I would assume softwires follows these same IETF guidelines and therefore is > now focusing solely on stateless approaches(?). If the IETF opinion has > changed so that also stateful double translation solutions are now ok for > IETF, then that should perhaps be reflected in this document as well. > > Unfortunately, I did not have chance to go to softwires interim, but please > let us know if the discussions there impact also the quoted recommendation. > > Best regards, > > Teemu > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: behave-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:behave-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On > > Behalf Of ext Satoru Matsushima > > Sent: 13. syyskuuta 2011 06:51 > > To: ietf@xxxxxxxx > > Cc: behave@xxxxxxxx; Satoru Matsushima > > Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Last Call: <draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih-06.txt> (Dual > > Stack Hosts Using "Bump-in-the-Host" (BIH)) to Proposed Standard > > > > The introduction in the draft says: > > > > > > > IETF recommends using dual-stack or tunneling based solutions for > > > IPv6 transition and specifically recommends against deployments > > > utilizing double protocol translation. Use of BIH together with a > > > NAT64 is NOT RECOMMENDED [RFC6180]. > > > > > > > > > This statement makes a strong obstacle when we develop stateless solution > > with translation in softwires wg. > > I think that it is still remained a room to make decision whether removing > the > > statement or remaining it. > > The discussion which we'll have in the softwires interim meeting would be > > helpful to decide it. > > > > Best regards, > > --satoru > > > > > > > > On 2011/08/31, at 22:53, The IESG wrote: > > > > > > > > The IESG has received a request from the Behavior Engineering for > > > Hindrance Avoidance WG (behave) to consider the following document: > > > - 'Dual Stack Hosts Using "Bump-in-the-Host" (BIH)' > > > <draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih-06.txt> as a Proposed Standard > > > > > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits > > > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the > > > ietf@xxxxxxxx mailing lists by 2011-09-14. Exceptionally, comments may > > > be sent to iesg@xxxxxxxx instead. In either case, please retain the > > > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > > > > > Abstract > > > > > > > > > Bump-In-the-Host (BIH) is a host-based IPv4 to IPv6 protocol > > > translation mechanism that allows a class of IPv4-only applications > > > that work through NATs to communicate with IPv6-only peers. The host > > > on which applications are running may be connected to IPv6-only or > > > dual-stack access networks. BIH hides IPv6 and makes the IPv4-only > > > applications think they are talking with IPv4 peers by local > > > synthesis of IPv4 addresses. This draft obsoletes RFC 2767 and RFC > > > 3338. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The file can be obtained via > > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih/ > > > > > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih/ > > > > > > > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Behave mailing list > > > Behave@xxxxxxxx > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Behave mailing list > > Behave@xxxxxxxx > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf