Re: [Softwires] MAP documents - next steps

[Rémi Després <[e-mail]>]

Le 2012-02-02 à 05:20, Maoke a écrit :

> 
> 2012/2/2 Rémi Després <[e-mail]>
> 
> 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;

No misunderstanding on this.

> 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;

Full transparency, based on clear theory, remains AFAIK better than "good enough" based on some collected statistic at a given time.

> 3. carrying ICMPv4 directly in IPv6 payload will be a harmful idea and less feasible.

I don't see where you see that ICMPv4 payload tunneled in a mapped header isn't easily feasible.

Stating it is harmful is of course not a proof.
Discussion on this point can continue with more details in other e-amils based on configurations you have in mind.  

RD

> 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