RE: [BEHAVE] Last Call: <draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih-06.txt> (Dual Stack

> > 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?

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.  
--

        Teemu

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf