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

[Rémi Després <[e-mail]>]

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