IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [bmwg] the draft "Benchmarking Methodology for IPv6 Transition Technologies"

Marius Georgescu <liviumarius-g@is.naist.jp> Fri, 21 August 2015 06:19 UTC

Return-Path: <liviumarius-g@is.naist.jp>
X-Original-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92C521A00EA for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 23:19:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 87fwPwdAjhZB for <bmwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 23:19:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailrelay21.naist.jp (mailrelay21.naist.jp [IPv6:2001:200:16a:50::71]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A16A41A015F for <bmwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Aug 2015 23:19:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailpost21.naist.jp (mailscan21.naist.jp [163.221.80.58]) by mailrelay21.naist.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91E8B870; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 15:19:52 +0900 (JST)
Received: from naist-wavenet125-198.naist.jp (naist-wavenet125-198.naist.jp [163.221.125.198]) by mailpost21.naist.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7C37C86F; Fri, 21 Aug 2015 15:19:52 +0900 (JST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
From: Marius Georgescu <liviumarius-g@is.naist.jp>
In-Reply-To: <6A01278C-E8AE-4A44-81DB-913483C51CDB@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 15:19:52 +0900
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <124B3D83-F1BE-4C26-B26B-43DAF41FCD5A@is.naist.jp>
References: <E063AAC7-4CF7-414C-AE35-321C9AA81D38@is.naist.jp> <CD932701-A631-40BF-8348-EB6ADDD6D227@cisco.com> <6A01278C-E8AE-4A44-81DB-913483C51CDB@cisco.com>
To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
X-TM-AS-MML: No
X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.1.0.1392-8.0.0.1202-21760.005
X-TM-AS-Result: No--1.417-5.0-31-10
X-imss-scan-details: No--1.417-5.0-31-10
X-TMASE-MatchedRID: X41QhRrT5f6PvrMjLFD6eB5+URxv1WlBGcfGM6EiL4aqvcIF1TcLYAi9 cmFBBPB+Ll+LPkOK/SjmxqgbBTMpEKBUZAsz8NJ5SEQN/D/3cG5QCOsAlaxN7yG8WMGwsRk0IL+ j00cxUVrFRUzHvySk/I94bAITV69tj2hRzH1UwuCDGx/OQ1GV8jDOIqGspeLdedU6lNdjG9rKR/ RCtjSsvt0H8LFZNFG7CKFCmhdu5cWa7JwMUjSK1IrrHjjdjL6Rl9bsC4wDH9En09hxloYFk9H1A uRv2kOvXA0EkJqFrjg2Vg5xLJF8Z8DbnmV1HK1mbC5LSU8IfGr6nA+xZHVFe2j0rMrhSEVzHtQ5 KNDxIhXqZM70ZSdCyp6oP1a0mRIj
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bmwg/HLuo_k1n1814mSixhqvFDBPUZi0>
Cc: "bmwg@ietf.org" <bmwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [bmwg] the draft "Benchmarking Methodology for IPv6 Transition Technologies"
X-BeenThere: bmwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Benchmarking Methodology Working Group <bmwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bmwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:bmwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg>, <mailto:bmwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 06:19:54 -0000


> On Aug 21, 2015, at 11:16, Fred Baker (fred) <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Dumb question. In your translation cases, between IPvx and IPvy, you have gone out of your way to say that x != y. Is there any reason to not use the same set of sets for x==y - NAT44, NAT66, NAT444?

This is a good point, if I’m not misunderstanding :).
Actually, looking back,  I haven’t mentioned anywhere that X and Y are  included in the  {4,6} set. 
And by  “ x==y-NAT44, NAT66, NAT444” I guess you mean the same IP NATs should be excluded?

Best regards,
Marius

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email