> -----Original Message----- > From: teemu.savolainen@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:teemu.savolainen@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 7:24 AM > To: dwing@xxxxxxxxx; satoru.matsushima@xxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx > Cc: softwires@xxxxxxxx; behave@xxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: [BEHAVE] Last Call: <draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih-06.txt> > (Dual Stack Hosts Using "Bump-in-the-Host" (BIH)) to Proposed Standard > > > > I don't understand why that is significant enough factor for IETF > to > > > (not) > > > recommend some double translation variants. I mean does existing > > > applications work better if double translation is done in > > > deterministic manner? > > > > Yes, it allows the CPE to implement an ALG -- if an application needs > an > ALG > > (e.g., active-mode FTP). > > Good point, but still in my eyes that does not count as too significant > factor, as it is impossible to have a generic ALG and I've understood > ALGs in CPEs are not very much desired? Yes, it is impossible to build a successful 'generic' ALG which fixes up all protocols. ALGs need to be specific to each application they're trying to 'fix'. > So.. then.. is this sentence really still the IETF recommendation in > the > current state of affairs: > -- > IETF recommends using dual-stack or tunneling based solutions for > IPv6 transition and specifically recommends against deployments > utilizing double protocol translation. > -- -d _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf