;>and
>>>>community reacts differently
>>>>on certain terms such as NAT..
>>>>
>>>>marco
>>>>
>>>>-Original Message-
>>>>From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
>>>
d
>>>community reacts differently
>>>on certain terms such as NAT..
>>>
>>>marco
>>>
>>>-Original Message-----
>>>From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
>>>(sgundave)
>>>Sent: Dienstag, 20. M
age-
>>> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
>>> (sgundave)
>>> Sent: Dienstag, 20. März 2018 12:40
>>> To: Tom Herbert; Lyle Bertz
>>> Cc: dmm
>>> Subject: Re: [DMM] draft-bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile
davelli
>>(sgundave)
>>Sent: Dienstag, 20. März 2018 12:40
>>To: Tom Herbert; Lyle Bertz
>>Cc: dmm
>>Subject: Re: [DMM] draft-bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane-00
>>
>>But, in any case, NAT is not such a bad word, its just that it pushed
>>IPv6 deploym
>
>-Original Message-
>From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli
>(sgundave)
>Sent: Dienstag, 20. März 2018 12:40
>To: Tom Herbert; Lyle Bertz
>Cc: dmm
>Subject: Re: [DMM] draft-bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane-00
>
>But, in any ca
My questions are if must describe these concepts in a training class to a
group of network operations personnel:
1. What term would the conversation devolve to?
2. What would one say to distinguish it from NAT in a manner that is
acceptable to the trainees in the class (you've answered that Tom)?
3
Herbert; Lyle Bertz
Cc: dmm
Subject: Re: [DMM] draft-bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-user-plane-00
But, in any case, NAT is not such a bad word, its just that it pushed IPv6
deployments out by 20 years.
Sri
On 3/20/18, 4:37 AM, "dmm on behalf of Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)"
wrote:
>Tom:
&g
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 4:37 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
wrote:
> Tom:
>
>> ILA is not NAT! :-)
>
> As seen from the end point, I agree ILA is not NAT. But, that the function
> that is needed at two places where you do translation of the addresses
> from SIR to LOCATOR, or LOCATOR to SIR is a NA
But, in any case, NAT is not such a bad word, its just that it pushed IPv6
deployments out by 20 years.
Sri
On 3/20/18, 4:37 AM, "dmm on behalf of Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)"
wrote:
>Tom:
>
>> ILA is not NAT! :-)
>
>As seen from the end point, I agree ILA is not NAT. But, that the function
>that
Tom:
> ILA is not NAT! :-)
As seen from the end point, I agree ILA is not NAT. But, that the function
that is needed at two places where you do translation of the addresses
from SIR to LOCATOR, or LOCATOR to SIR is a NAT function, and you have a
mapping state similar to NAT state. That¹s a NAT :-
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 3:57 AM, Lyle Bertz wrote:
> We'll be quite time constrained during this session so I thought I would ask
> a couple of simple questions which I hope have already been addressed in
> previous e-mails:
>
> 1. Figures 14 & 15 are described as options and do not include an SMF
We'll be quite time constrained during this session so I thought I would
ask a couple of simple questions which I hope have already been addressed
in previous e-mails:
1. Figures 14 & 15 are described as options and do not include an SMF.
However, Figures 16 & 17 do. It is a bit confusing. Are 1
12 matches
Mail list logo
