Re: the draft "Benchmarking Methodology for IPv6 Transition Technologies"
Marius Georgescu <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.bmwg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> On Aug 21, 2015, at 11:16, Fred Baker (fred) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dumb question. In your translation cases, between IPvx and IPvy, you have gone out of your way to say that x != y. Is there any reason to not use the same set of sets for x==y - NAT44, NAT66, NAT444? This is a good point, if I’m not misunderstanding :). Actually, looking back, I haven’t mentioned anywhere that X and Y are included in the {4,6} set. And by “ x==y-NAT44, NAT66, NAT444” I guess you mean the same IP NATs should be excluded? Best regards, Marius _______________________________________________ bmwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg