Re: How to include APBP scenarios in the Coexistence RequirementI-D

[marcelo bagnulo braun <[e-mail]>]

In the next version, i will try to reflect the received comments indeed


Rémi Després escribió:
> marcelo bagnulo braun  - Le 6/19/08 5:56 PM :
>> Remi,
>>
>> as editor of the document, my task is to reflect the WG consensus in 
>> the document.
>
> Fair enough.
>
>> So far, i only see you supporting for this i.e. i haven't received 
>> any other comment on this respect.
> >
>> So, if other people care to comment on this, and the WG express that 
>> they are ok with including this in the document, i would do that.
>
> Please remember what Teemu Savolainen wrote to you in
> http://psg.com/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2008/msg00800.html, namely:
>
> "One aspect on these transition mechanisms is placement of NAT(s) 
> (4-4, 4-6, 6-4) and required ALGs, i.e. whether those are on client 
> itself, on gateway, or nowhere (APBP kind of approach). Different 
> approaches have different pros and cons, which should be studied more. 
> The placement likely affects at least on scalability of the solution."
>
>
>
> Also you can note what Brian Carpenter answered to Iljitsch van 
> Beijnum, in 
> http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2008/msg00876.html, namely:
>
> > The public address of the NAT to which you are tunneling. Of course,
> > that NAT has to be configured to forward port N through a tunnel
> > to whatever IPv4 address 2001:db8:31::1 has borrowed.
> >
> > (draft-despres-v6ops-apbp-00.txt would automate the borrowing
> > process, if you don't want to configure it.)
>
> Automating configuration is of course a nice thing to have.
>
>
>
> Rémi
>
>
>