[Softwires] Objection to 4rd-U made in Softwire meeting understood to be invalid

[Rémi Després <[e-mail]>]

Ole,

In the Softwire meeting of Monday, the key argument against the 4rd unified approach (4rd-U) was that *Because checksum neutrality of addresses is part of 4rd-U, it would allegedly cause "address spreading" (addresses used between a pair of hosts would vary)*. 
You had a slide asserting it, and the argument was taken as granted, and important, in verbal comments from Mark Townsley and Dave Thaler.
I forcefully declared that this was technically false.
Since no time has been granted to explain, I invited anyone in doubt to contact me for explanations. 
Thanks for having taken the time to do it.

Following our discussion of yesterday, I think you now understand that, as I said:
- *TCP/UDP checksum neutrality of addresses DOES NOT interfere in any way with stability of addresses between host pairs*.
- Consequently, the key argument of the meeting against 4rd-U is invalid.

Since there is no more Softwire session in IETF 82, I will appreciate if you acknowledge it now on this mailing list.

Thanks,
RD