I don't understand why that is significant enough factor for IETF to
recommend some double translation variants. I mean does existing
applications work better if double translation is done in
Yes, it allows the CPE to implement an ALG -- if an application needs an
(e.g., active-mode FTP).
Good point, but still in my eyes that does not count as too significant
factor, as it is impossible to have a generic ALG and I've understood ALGs
in CPEs are not very much desired?
So.. then.. is this sentence really still the IETF recommendation in the
current state of affairs:
IETF recommends using dual-stack or tunneling based solutions for
IPv6 transition and specifically recommends against deployments
utilizing double protocol translation.
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Ietf mailing list