marcelo bagnulo braun - Le 6/19/08 5:56 PM :
Remi,
as editor of the document, my task is to reflect the WG consensus in
the document.
Fair enough.
So far, i only see you supporting for this i.e. i haven't received
any other comment on this respect.
>
So, if other people care to comment on this, and the WG express that
they are ok with including this in the document, i would do that.
Please remember what Teemu Savolainen wrote to you in
http://psg.com/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2008/msg00800.html, namely:
"One aspect on these transition mechanisms is placement of NAT(s)
(4-4, 4-6, 6-4) and required ALGs, i.e. whether those are on client
itself, on gateway, or nowhere (APBP kind of approach). Different
approaches have different pros and cons, which should be studied more.
The placement likely affects at least on scalability of the solution."
Also you can note what Brian Carpenter answered to Iljitsch van
Beijnum, in
http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2008/msg00876.html, namely:
> The public address of the NAT to which you are tunneling. Of course,
> that NAT has to be configured to forward port N through a tunnel
> to whatever IPv4 address 2001:db8:31::1 has borrowed.
>
> (draft-despres-v6ops-apbp-00.txt would automate the borrowing
> process, if you don't want to configure it.)
Automating configuration is of course a nice thing to have.
Rémi