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

[Rémi Després <[e-mail]>]

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,

Introducing ICMPv4 messages in IPv6 packets "instead of" ICMPv6 messages in RFC6145 would be an incompatible change. 
I don't think anyone proposed that.
 
What might be envisaged without the same backward incompatibility, is that IPv6-only hosts would accept in IPv6 packets BOTH IPv6 ICMP messages and ICMPv4 messages.

Yet, it remains to be analyzed whether it would be useful in real world.

This depends on a detailed use case being identified, where double RFC6145 translation would have a substantial advantage over the header-mapping variant of 4rd-U-03 (4rd-H). (This advantage would have to compensate for the loss of IPv4 transparency as good as that of 4rd-E, and for the loss of the tunnel-specific traffic class which can be used in 4rd-E.) 

This use case, key for this discussion, is subject of another e-mail thread.

RD