> > 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? 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. -- Teemu
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf