Re: [v4v6interim] Comparison document

Dan,
I find the the document as it is very helpful.

But sorry I didn't see earlier that figure 2 is confusing (it shows a 
NAT traversal where there is none).

This would be IMO a better figure:
<<<

                       +---+                             +-------------+
         IPv6 host-----+   |            +----------------+IPv6 Internet|
                       |   +--IPv6------+                +-------------+
      APBPR DS host----+DS |
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^     |CPE|                 +--------+  +-------------+
          IPv4 host----+   +===IPv6 tunnel===+  APBPR +--+IPv4 Internet|
                       +---+                 | tunnel |  +-------------+
                                             |concent.|
                                             +--------+

         |<--------------public v4 (partially in tunnel) ------------> 
                 	|<--local v6-->|<--service provider v6--->|<----public 
v4--->

      Figure 2: APBR-host - tunnel between CPE and APBR tunnel endpoint

 >>>

Also, but less important, in the text for figures 2 and 3, and in figure 
3 itself, replacing "Softwire" by "APBPR" could be preferable. (APBPR 
tunnel endpoints have specific functions)

RD

Dan Wing   (m/j/a) 9/16/08 5:45 PM:
> We just submitted "A Comparison of Proposals to Replace NAT-PT", which
> attempts to summarize and compare APB-Revised, Dual-Stack Lite, NAT444, IVI,
> NAT6, NAT64, NAT-PT, and sNAT-PT.
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wing-nat-pt-replacement-comparison-0
> 0.txt
> 
> -d
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v4v6interim mailing list
> v4v6interim@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
v4v6interim mailing list
v4v6interim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim