RE: [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel a MIP6/NEMO WGs document

[Sri Gundavelli <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Pekka Savola wrote:

> On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Pascal Thubert (pthubert) wrote:
> > Even better would be that this "box in the DMZ" terminates V4, and sends
> > packets to the HA in IPv6. Say, doing some NAT-PT instead of tunneling,
> > classical alternates.
>
> Please, don't even consider translation.
>
> You may be interested of the following:
>
> "Reasons to Move NAT-PT to Experimental"
> draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-exprmntl-00
>
> AFAIK, that has just recently been forwarded to the IESG for
> processing.
>
> > Seems to me that the line if thought that starts at your "box in the
> > DMZ" ends up being With Doors.
> >
> > With Doors, the "box in the DMZ" is the Doors gateway between IPv4 and
> > IPv6.
>
> Doors does not solve the problem if the strict requirement is avoiding
> "extra" encapsulation, right?  (I may not buy that requirement myself,
> but we should at least get to consensus whether it's one or not.)
>

Hi Pekka,

I agree with you that saving the extra encap should not be
the central focus. If saving few bytes is of paramount
interest, there are header compression techniques that we
can apply to doors. Choosing a solution by basing this as
the central argument is not right.

Sri