Re: [Softwires] No change to RFC6145 needed for 4rd-U

Mark Townsley <mark@townsley.net> Thu, 02 February 2012 13:49 UTC

Return-Path: <mark@townsley.net>
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 93A7E21F88A3 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 05:49:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.144
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.144 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.454, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 FvKlWujKFLdY for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 05:49:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA38821F88A1 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 05:49:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wgbdt10 with SMTP id dt10so1944309wgb.13 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Thu, 02 Feb 2012 05:49:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.180.24.202 with SMTP id w10mr4704018wif.9.1328190547920; Thu, 02 Feb 2012 05:49:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ams-townsley-8715.cisco.com (64-103-25-233.cisco.com. [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l6sm51716810wiv.11.2012.02.02.05.49.05 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 02 Feb 2012 05:49:06 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-46--156490952
From: Mark Townsley <mark@townsley.net>
In-Reply-To: <23CE9B9D-5469-4537-B4D8-607834D13EBF@laposte.net>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 14:49:03 +0100
Message-Id: <C0D6C223-B26E-4435-9470-7274FCF5D144@townsley.net>
References: <C992D2F8-5E8C-4601-B07D-37AB2B7E72D3@laposte.net> <CAFUBMqXm3BiK5Cq8nmy97Nr6eVYZgooc38Rv3PB6nOWAzmMbUg@mail.gmail.com> <52DBFDA9-1BBB-47DD-9165-F9C0341A669C@laposte.net> <CAFUBMqXVx9F5V+_5RcLdr8V5dn9Hxixm+19hXX10Zh-86t-W4w@mail.gmail.com> <3069401B-458B-41E2-B6B3-B9FA8811CC30@laposte.net> <CAFUBMqX83kPN7VeE4=iu30ne2p7zuBuKk6Aq2SHkkEqz3Tye5Q@mail.gmail.com> <23CE9B9D-5469-4537-B4D8-607834D13EBF@laposte.net>
To: Maoke <fibrib@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] No change to RFC6145 needed for 4rd-U
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 13:49:09 -0000

On Feb 2, 2012, at 10:30 AM, Rémi Després wrote:

> 
> Le 2012-02-01 à 03:04, Maoke a écrit :
>> ...
>> 
>> i have investigated, technically, what if we had updated RFC6145 with carrying ICMPv4 messages in IPv6 directly instead of translating to ICMPv6, specially for double translation,

As I watch double-translation slowly morph into tunnel encapsulation one step at a time right before my eyes....

- Mark