Re: the draft "Benchmarking Methodology for IPv6 Transition Technologies"
Marius Georgescu <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.bmwg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
That is an interesting thought. I’ll think about how to shape the cases to stay within the scope claimed in the title and throughout the paper: “IPv6 transition technologies”. To be more specific, my biggest concern is with NAT44 and NAT444, which in conjuncture with other technologies can actually represent a transition method to IPv6, but by themselves do not. Anyways, I need to process the thought further. Thank you very much for another good suggestion. Best regards, Marius > On Aug 21, 2015, at 15:36, Fred Baker (fred) <[email protected]> wrote: > > The opposite. You're very carefully testing translation from IPv4 to IPv6 to IPv4. As a result, you've done all the legwork to test IPv4/IPv4 or IPv6/IPv6 translation. Why not simply make that be among your cases? _______________________________________________ bmwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg