Re: [Softwires] MAP documents - next steps

Maoke <fibrib@gmail.com> Thu, 02 February 2012 04:20 UTC

Return-Path: <fibrib@gmail.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 270B411E80BF for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 20:20:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.298
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 YwHdfTXx9zTk for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 20:20:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8504A11E80B4 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 20:20:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qcsg13 with SMTP id g13so1332354qcs.31 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 20:20:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=MV7b0b58muwmbOR2E4vekombk43p+fHLg8PhcXSzdqU=; b=Tmvne77YMokFWjMbX7vAQJjucVa4gb1bsLw3ixGFYlugj/nXni7o4BY7zUrgc+xzSS e/qSDk9rO10OfFUWSI8bYsUeuqx/WClMU+nQN4K+bjBPnVacagietMiBBohGOvp9Wd2n fMQGmcb9WNUuzhaJ9hVOobaT+dS7T4Jjcafuc=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.202.65 with SMTP id fd1mr1952031qab.12.1328156455079; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 20:20:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.229.211.72 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 20:20:55 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <6E0CF34A-0989-4C69-8094-136EAEC7BBE1@laposte.net>
References: <5AAB067C-B5EF-4F75-B844-AFC33A96261C@employees.org> <97737FB3-6A47-4530-BE58-68209022D155@townsley.net> <6E0CF34A-0989-4C69-8094-136EAEC7BBE1@laposte.net>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 13:20:55 +0900
Message-ID: <CAFUBMqX-jQeHRAcc2sPKSk9+d0-G_b88xXg1_u=nPaU2k+-8nA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Maoke <fibrib@gmail.com>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?B?UultaSBEZXNwculz?= <despres.remi@laposte.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf30050eeab60fad04b7f3853a
Cc: softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] MAP documents - next steps
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, 02 Feb 2012 04:20:56 -0000

2012/2/2 Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net>

>
> Except for the fact that double RF46145 is replaced by the self-contained
> Header mapping variant, more transparent, but about which there is an
> ongoing discussion with Maoke, the last 4rd-U draft is, in my
> understanding, largely what you are looking for.
>

briefly summary my action and understanding in order to avoid confusion. 1.
my detailed re-study on RFC6145 behavior in double translation has been
finished and i have NO new protocol or algorithm proposal which is worthy
sharing to the community; 2. (because) RFC6145 has provided (not thorough
but) good enough transparency when used in double translation, and
accordingly it is NOT needed to be updated; 3. carrying ICMPv4 directly in
IPv6 payload will be a harmful idea and less feasible.

basically i doubt it is significant enough to make a document explaining
the RFC6145 behavior in double-translation, as well as the corresponding
concerns. however, if some people would like to have such an informational
document, i'd love to elaborate.

- maoke