Re: the draft "Benchmarking Methodology for IPv6 Transition Technologies"
"Fred Baker (fred)" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.bmwg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
> On Aug 20, 2015, at 11:19 PM, Marius Georgescu <[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? 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
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 833 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQIVAwUBVdbG50ayAOS/EQ8MAQIY0xAApQlFkEJJ0gy8zo+CTS2fT1+vk4okdDs4 3zOfVfYQjIA4iKpCoj49YgYwz1e1iI7jjMkUEmWnS2PmPtMNeF5Pwy0mL//yVio1 BSECIArQxsSflC+P2ePBHGRHxTqvRjpjUiC6Dv3iNhXViSzfqIQ2ekihvPstnJva KGI5MkCTDPsVWe4TpBhBmXyR8WtkLg7g+21dkalA+ezLw+JQ4beOx4Wwrpi7xuo0 0ICk+k2UHGgubqX/M+xSdD3V5r5hK2MFc+OToo9Ng59uX4uUgPgW532XTRp4OvQU p0FtpOvL99nBIs0MY/nkK1iFko8S0VrdaPhGMIPTheGPNRU/kxL4m2YGYV1O0/p7 dmj1za29MTIeGa6EdKr8XpKCcILgQ1TIcIwE6QF6yb9LbQcePkqjIpshjQhOQ/Sa UV5UEsY+w9FP6zQvVlsG8yfrI+q2wMNcSd7DZcvmhzrGhplSQ/uR1LH/mq3K8K33 TVyr2QNwV49AGroMotrJtYwAuqmLhbzgqyQVT4bRKOovXTBu8DZXASmY7uB5i9Iw UYQ/TdOfvlNQGiJm5fXrvltNFj2Dm+obI0/uMOQ3bCoPley+O2yjVl44vsMyOZ7A dA96ziuyyS+An1o+LKw8pv3HhVqwvuluWvNcKCmAZWOJLxceWGTcSrY1VGYodw7O CTLzLvuQEvY= =x2t2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----