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

[Joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>]

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.

There is comentary on the v6ops list from the map-t about deriving the
prefix of the core nat-64 translator in a consistent fashion across
draft, there is perhaps work to be done there though it is likely that
behave is the place for that, e.g.
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-nat64-discovery-heuristic-05)

On 2/19/12 06:29 , Rémi Després wrote:

<snip>

> (4) Softwire's charter has "Developments for stateless legacy IPv4
> carried over IPv6". 464XLAT introduces in user devices a  new
> stateless behavior, but one that is based on private IPv4 addresses
> like DS-lite, and one that uses IPv4 packet formats like those of
> MA-T or 4rd-U (three Softwire designs). SOFTWIRE therefore continues
> to be the right WG to pursue this work.

softwires charter also says:

  IPv4/IPv6 translation mechanisms, new addressing schemes, and block
  address assignments are out of scope

which ought to rule out pretty much anything that has employs an rfc
6146 translator.


> To conclude, a rectification of the situation would be to: - cancel
> the ietf-v6ops-464xlat draft - continue to work on the Softwire
> 464XLAT, in relationship with other stateless user-device solutions
> (hopefully with an updated draft version reflecting recent additions
> made in the v6ops draft)

I'm not particularly wedded to the idea of it being in v6ops. I am
interested in seeing it get a fair hearing, the lack of novelty has some
relevance in an operational context.