Re: [Softwires] I-D Action:draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite-08.txt
Daniel Roesen <dr@cluenet.de> Tue, 03 May 2011 20:15 UTC
Return-Path: <dr@cluenet.de>
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 35072E0680 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 May 2011 13:15:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WFyemuPQKcM8 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 May 2011 13:15:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail1.cluenet.de (mail1.cluenet.de [IPv6:2001:1440:201:101::5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 632D3E067E for <softwires@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 May 2011 13:15:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail1.cluenet.de (Postfix, from userid 500) id 078B01080B5; Tue, 3 May 2011 22:15:13 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 22:15:13 +0200
From: Daniel Roesen <dr@cluenet.de>
To: softwires@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20110503201513.GB14380@srv03.cluenet.de>
Mail-Followup-To: softwires@ietf.org
References: <20110502173002.28039.23095.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20110502173002.28039.23095.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action:draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite-08.txt
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: Tue, 03 May 2011 20:15:22 -0000
On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 10:30:02AM -0700, Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote: > Title : Dual-Stack Lite Broadband Deployments Following IPv4 Exhaustion > Author(s) : A. Durand, et al. > Filename : draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite-08.txt 7.2. VPN Dual-stack lite implementations MUST NOT interfere with the functioning of IPv4 or IPv6 VPNs. This "MUST NOT" was "SHOULD NOT" in -07. What's the motivation for that change? Is there a specific problem/scenario which is supposed to be solved? How is a DS-Lite implementation supposed to not interfere e.g. with IPSEC-AH (and other VPN types having inherent problems with NAPT44)? Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
- [Softwires] I-D Action:draft-ietf-softwire-dual-s… Internet-Drafts
- Re: [Softwires] I-D Action:draft-ietf-softwire-du… Daniel Roesen
- Re: [Softwires] I-D Action:draft-ietf-softwire-du… Lee, Yiu
- Re: [Softwires] I-D Action:draft-ietf-softwire-du… Daniel Roesen
- Re: [Softwires] I-D Action:draft-ietf-softwire-du… Lee, Yiu