> > 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@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
