Hi Dan inline please,
> I believe the objection is against "non-deterministic translation", > rather than stateful versus stateless. By non-deterministic, I mean > that the subscriber's equipment (e.g., CPE) cannot determine the > mapping it will have on the Internet. A+P mechanisms are > Could you help be more elaboration on CPE can't determine the ampping? > deterministic (including 4rd, Dual-IVI, and draft-ymbk-aplus-p). > By the way, I would say you are missing one early draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-murakami-softwire-4v6-translation-00 which is align with 4rd about 4v6 translation which has been contributed by major operators which is also align with NAT64 deployment. -Hui > > A stateful CGN, as commonly deployed, is not deterministic. > > However -- and this is my point in this email -- a stateful CGN > can be configured and deployed so that it deterministically maps > traffic. That is, it can function very much like A+P/4rd/Dual-IVI > so that port "N" from subscriber "A" is always mapped to public > port "Z" on IPv4 address "Y". We could have the CPE know about > that fixed mapping using the same DHCP options that A+P/4rd/ > Dual-IVI would use, or use PCP, or use some other protocol. > > -d > > > I would assume softwires follows these same IETF guidelines and > > therefore is > > now focusing solely on stateless approaches(?). If the IETF opinion has > > changed so that also stateful double translation solutions are now ok > > for > > IETF, then that should perhaps be reflected in this document as well. > > > > Unfortunately, I did not have chance to go to softwires interim, but > > please > > let us know if the discussions there impact also the quoted > > recommendation. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Teemu > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > > > Behalf Of ext Satoru Matsushima > > > Sent: 13. syyskuuta 2011 06:51 > > > To: [email protected] > > > Cc: [email protected]; Satoru Matsushima > > > Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Last Call: <draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih-06.txt> > > (Dual > > > Stack Hosts Using "Bump-in-the-Host" (BIH)) to Proposed Standard > > > > > > The introduction in the draft says: > > > > > > > > > > IETF recommends using dual-stack or tunneling based solutions for > > > > IPv6 transition and specifically recommends against deployments > > > > utilizing double protocol translation. Use of BIH together with > > a > > > > NAT64 is NOT RECOMMENDED [RFC6180]. > > > > > > > > > > > > > This statement makes a strong obstacle when we develop stateless > > solution > > > with translation in softwires wg. > > > I think that it is still remained a room to make decision whether > > removing > > the > > > statement or remaining it. > > > The discussion which we'll have in the softwires interim meeting > > would be > > > helpful to decide it. > > > > > > Best regards, > > > --satoru > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2011/08/31, at 22:53, The IESG wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > The IESG has received a request from the Behavior Engineering for > > > > Hindrance Avoidance WG (behave) to consider the following document: > > > > - 'Dual Stack Hosts Using "Bump-in-the-Host" (BIH)' > > > > <draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih-06.txt> as a Proposed Standard > > > > > > > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and > > solicits > > > > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to > > the > > > > [email protected] mailing lists by 2011-09-14. Exceptionally, comments > > may > > > > be sent to [email protected] instead. In either case, please retain the > > > > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > > > > > > > Abstract > > > > > > > > > > > > Bump-In-the-Host (BIH) is a host-based IPv4 to IPv6 protocol > > > > translation mechanism that allows a class of IPv4-only > > applications > > > > that work through NATs to communicate with IPv6-only peers. The > > host > > > > on which applications are running may be connected to IPv6-only > > or > > > > dual-stack access networks. BIH hides IPv6 and makes the IPv4- > > only > > > > applications think they are talking with IPv4 peers by local > > > > synthesis of IPv4 addresses. This draft obsoletes RFC 2767 and > > RFC > > > > 3338. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The file can be obtained via > > > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih/ > > > > > > > > IESG discussion can be tracked via > > > > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih/ > > > > > > > > > > > > No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Behave mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Behave mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave > > _______________________________________________ > Behave mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave >
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
