Re: [v6ops] draft-464XLAT not a "trial deployment report" - not to be an ietf-v6ops I.D.

On 19 February 2012 20:23, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 2012-02-20 05:37, Joel jaeggli wrote:
> > So, when I read  464xlat what I see is a stack of existing RFCs used in
> > a specific fashion which the draft describes. I don't see any new
> > standards work.
>
> fwiw I agree with that. I think v6ops is the appropriate venue
> for descriptions of how to knit existing protocol specs together
> in operational scenarios.
>
> I do object slightly to the way draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat uses
> the word "architecture". It's an operational scenario, not an
> architecture, IMHO.
>

The operational experiment is something that deserves to be documented,
however it's as per my reading current quite a bit more given:
a) the presence of normative terms in the document
b) the emphasis on effectively specifying/casting the use of a very
specific subset of the stateless NAT64 spec eg just allowing the /96
address format to be used
c) the assumption that a stateless NAT64 client will always be used with a
stateful NAT64 core element

Based on my reading (and as exemplified in earlier email), should an
implementation follow this spec "as is", it would result in impaired
communication should a device supporting this spec "move" to a network
where b) and c) are different.

Cheers,
Wojciech.

>
>   Brian
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>