[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-pb-statement-req-00 - are changes in dualstack hosts acceptable or not?



teemu.savolainen@nokia.com  - Le 7/26/08 9:13 AM :

We also have a large number of to-be-deployed devices in the
pipeline, which still can be modified in any ways seen useful. I
argue that this number is far larger than the number of already
deployed devices, and that this number of devices should not have
suboptimal functionality just because we do not want to touch to
already deployed v6-capable hosts.

IPv6 deployment is anyhow just beginning.

Full support.

One more point: these "modifications" must ensure *backward compatibility*.
- This the right way to add fuctionnalities.
- Unmodified" devices continue to operate as before.
- They don't prevent others do take advantage of new capabilities.

When backward compatibility is preserved, I personnally prefer more precise words as "complements", or "enhancements", or "extensions", to "modifications".


Regards.

Rémi Després