Re: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan
Jacni Qin <jacni@jacni.com> Thu, 09 February 2012 08:02 UTC
Return-Path: <jacni@jacni.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 974F321F8518 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 00:02:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.287
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.287 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zprXcxnWu3yt for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 00:02:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from srv05.olivemail.cn (mx100.vip.olivemail.net [74.82.185.218]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C103721F8508 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 00:02:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from srv01.olivemail.cn (unknown [202.105.21.229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by srv05.olivemail.cn (Olivemail) with ESMTPS id AB12A3800BE for <softwires@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 03:02:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from oray.cn (unknown [202.105.21.248]) by srv01.olivemail.cn (Olivemail) with ESMTP id 047643400D7 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 16:02:36 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [114.87.135.99] (unknown [114.87.135.99]) by app (Coremail) with SMTP id +AWowJAbqgR+fTNPkTBtAA--.1649S2; Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:02:22 +0800 (CST)
Message-ID: <4F337E48.3050705@jacni.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:05:28 +0800
From: Jacni Qin <jacni@jacni.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120129 Thunderbird/10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Lee, Yiu" <Yiu_Lee@Cable.Comcast.com>
References: <CB582B0A.1C4E6%yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com>
In-Reply-To: <CB582B0A.1C4E6%yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090204000706080208010603"
X-CM-TRANSID: +AWowJAbqgR+fTNPkTBtAA--.1649S2
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvdXoWrKw45tF45GFWDCF15KF4UArb_yoWfZrg_uF 4DWa48Xw4qyrZ3Ka1xtF98ArsxC3yYg34UJa4kGw1jvFy0yFsFyrsrXrWkCr45GFy7Cr9x Gr1fXr1DCw4aqjkaLaAFLSUrUUUUUb8apTn2vfkv8UJUUUU8Yxn0WfASr-VFAUDa7-sFnT 9fnUUIcSsGvfJ-t7k0a2IF6F4UM7kC6x804xWl1xkIjI8I6I8E6xAIw20EY4v20xvaj40_ Wr0E3s1lYx0E2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_Jr4lYx0Ex4A2jsIE14v26r1j6r4UM4x0Y48IcV AKI48JMx8GjcxK6IxK0xIIj40E5I8CrwCYjI0SjxkI62AI1cAE67vIY487MxAIw28IcxkI 7VAKI48JMI8E67AF67kF1VAFwI0_JF0_Jw1lIxkGc2Ij64vIr4UvcSsGvfC2KfnxnUUI43 ZEXa7IU8ijjDUUUUU==
X-CM-SenderInfo: xmdf0xo6mdu03lof0z/1tbiAQEQEko7lP+cMwBMs7
Cc: Softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>, Rémi Després <remi.despres@free.fr>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 08:02:41 -0000
Re-, +1, IMHO it's unacceptable in practice. Cheers, Jacni On 2/9/2012 2:39 AM, Lee, Yiu wrote: > Hi Remi, > > I know this is possible to do, in theory. However my question is more > toward manageability of the network. IMHO, layering one tunnel (or > translation) protocol on another tunnel protocol is asking for trouble. > > Cheers, > /Yiu > > On 2/8/12 2:13 AM, "Rémi Després"<remi.despres@free.fr> wrote: > >> 6rd can be deployed over Net-10 networks (RFC1918) to deployIPv6. >> Shared public IPv4 addresses can then be offered to customers via this >> IPv6. >> Such a use case, based on the header-mappiong variant of 4rd-U rather >> than on a double MAP encapsulation, is described in >> tools.ietf.org/html/draft-despres-softwire-4rd-u-03#section-5.4. >> >> RD >> > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >
- [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan Cameron Byrne
- Re: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan Maoke
- Re: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan Ole Trøan
- Re: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
- Re: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan Tina TSOU
- Re: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan Lee, Yiu
- [Softwires] 答复: Stateless implementation plan Linjian Song
- Re: [Softwires] 答复: Stateless implementation plan Lee, Yiu
- Re: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
- Re: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan Lee, Yiu
- Re: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan Lee, Yiu
- Re: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan Cameron Byrne
- Re: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan Jacni Qin
- Re: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan Rémi Després
- Re: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan Rémi Després