De : Qiong [mailto:bingxu...@gmail.com]
Envoyé : mardi 16 août 2011 18:29
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP
Cc : Nejc Škoberne; softwires@ietf.org;
draft-operators-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivat...@tools.ietf.org
Objet : Re: [Softwires] draft-operators-softwire-stateless-4v6
: [Softwires]
draft-operators-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation
Hi, Med, and Nejc,
Please see inline.
You indeed loose agressive sharnig ratio, but you have somewhat
more
flexible addressing. Also, the CPEs can
Hello,
I have some comments on your draft, see inline.
Regards,
Nejc
---
2. Terminology
This document makes use of the following terms:
Stateful 4/6 solution (or stateful solution in short): denotes a
solution where the network maintains
Dear Med,
[NS: If we consider a stateful A+P solution, we don't necessarily
have a dependency between an IPv6 prefix and IPv4 address. Also, we
don't have any user-session state in the Service Provider's network.
Med: Fully agree. FWIW, this is what we called Binding Table A+P Mode in
: Rémi Després [mailto:despres.r...@laposte.net]
Envoyé : mardi 16 août 2011 16:30
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP
Cc : Nejc Škoberne;
draft-operators-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivat...@tools.ietf.org;
softwires@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [Softwires] draft-operators-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation
mohamed.boucad...@orange-ftgroup.com wrote, on 08/16/2011 11:03 AM:
As for the content of the next iteration of the document, we have two options
so far:
(1) Put back some sections which have been removed in -02, add a new section
to discuss dynamic vs. static, handle the comments received
-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivat...@tools.ietf.org
Cc : softwires@ietf.org
Objet : [Softwires] draft-operators-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation
Hello,
I have some comments on your draft, see inline.
Regards,
Nejc
---
2. Terminology
This document makes use
Hi, Med, and Nejc,
Please see inline.
You indeed loose agressive sharnig ratio, but you have somewhat more
flexible addressing. Also, the CPEs can be then really simple devices,
excluding any of the NAPT functionality, doing only stateless
encapsulation.
However, what you loose/gain is
On 8/16/11 5:03 PM, mohamed.boucad...@orange-ftgroup.com wrote:
2) An alternative structure has been proposed off-line by A. Durand:
discuss dynamic vs. static and stateful vs. dynamic. The analysis
would elaborate the pros and cons of each solution (static stateless,
static stateful, dynamic
Hi,
On 8/16/2011 11:03 PM, mohamed.boucad...@orange-ftgroup.com wrote:
...
As for the content of the next iteration of the document, we have two options
so far:
(1) Put back some sections which have been removed in -02, add a new section to
discuss dynamic vs. static, handle the comments
@ietf.org Objet : Re: [Softwires]
| draft-operators-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation
|
| Hi Med,
|
| At the last meeting, a vote was taken to decide whether this
|draft should become a WG draft.
| The answer has been a crystal clear yes, with the common
|understanding that, as such, it would have
11 matches
Mail list logo
