-----Original Message-----
From: teemu(_dot_)savolainen(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com
[mailto:teemu(_dot_)savolainen(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 7:24 AM
To: dwing(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com; satoru(_dot_)matsushima(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: softwires(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; behave(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: [BEHAVE] Last Call: <draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih-06.txt>
(Dual Stack Hosts Using "Bump-in-the-Host" (BIH)) to Proposed Standard
I don't understand why that is significant enough factor for IETF
to
(not)
recommend some double translation variants. I mean does existing
applications work better if double translation is done in
deterministic manner?
Yes, it allows the CPE to implement an ALG -- if an application needs
an
ALG
(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?
Yes, it is impossible to build a successful 'generic' ALG which
fixes up all protocols. ALGs need to be specific to each application
they're trying to 'fix'.
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.
--
-d
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf