In your previous mail you wrote:
Today, if a user generates a packet using an illegal IPv4 source address,
what would we do? We could drop the packet silently by doing
source-verify. So, tomorrow if a user use illegal port, IMHO AFTR should
drop the packet silently.
= it is a bit
On Mar 17, 2012, at 12:44 PM, Qi Sun wrote:
Hi Med,
I've read through the draft-penno-* and IMHO it is reasonable in the
view of deployment. By configuring the profile (i.e. the per-subscriber
mapping table) in the AFTRs, the SPs can achieve an explicit binding between
the IPv4
Today, if a user generates a packet using an illegal IPv4 source address,
what would we do? We could drop the packet silently by doing
source-verify. So, tomorrow if a user use illegal port, IMHO AFTR should
drop the packet silently.
On 3/20/12 9:06 AM, Alain Durand adur...@juniper.net wrote:
; draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite;
draft-penno-softwire-sd...@tools.ietf.org
Objet : Re: [Softwires] draft-penno-softwire-sdnat vs.
draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite
Today, if a user generates a packet using an illegal IPv4
source address,
what would we do? We could drop the packet
Hi Med,
I read through the draft-penno-* and IMHO it is reasonable in the view of
deployment. By configuring the profile (i.e. the per-subscriber mapping table)
in the AFTRs, the SPs can achieve an explicit binding between the IPv4 address
+ port-set and the customer. This can mean the
...@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Softwires] draft-penno-softwire-sdnat vs.
draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite
In your previous mail you wrote:
In your previous mail you wrote:
(*) Question 1: It is not clear in text if there is a second NAT
in the AFTR or not. Could you please
: [Softwires] draft-penno-softwire-sdnat vs.
draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite
In your previous mail you wrote:
Med: Why you need an IPv4 address to run PCP? An implementation
example would be as follows:
* At bootstrap of the CPE, once an AFTR is discovered, use the Plain
IPv6 PCP
Objet : Re: [Softwires] draft-penno-softwire-sdnat vs.
draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite
This is a deployment issue. You have 3 variants of DS-Lite CPEs:
a) Basic 6333 DS-Lite, b) B4 translated DS-lite, and c)
Stateless DS-Lite.
You want to be able able to accommodate all 3 variants
On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:34 PM, Francis Dupont wrote:
In your previous mail you wrote:
However, the draft seems give people impression there is only one NAT
at CPE(i.e. 2.3. Stateless DS-Lite CPE operation) and AFTR is
responsible for decapsulation and IPv4 package validation. Did I miss
In your previous mail you wrote:
Med: Why you need an IPv4 address to run PCP? An implementation
example would be as follows:
* At bootstrap of the CPE, once an AFTR is discovered, use the Plain
IPv6 PCP mode and the new opcode and options defined in
In your previous mail you wrote:
Med: The PCP case has been demoed.
= My comment is about PCP without any extension.
In the second demonstration scenario, the CPE requested several sets
of noncontiguous ports (utilizing draft-tsou-pcp-natcoord-03 and
In your previous mail you wrote:
[Qiong] We also have implemented and demoed in IETF 81th. Please refer to
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite-04.txt in
Appendix section.
= same: my comment is about the base PCP for port range discovery.
Regards
In your previous mail you wrote:
1) - we would have to define the DHCP port option. Not difficult but
same amount of work as defining a new ICMP type.
= is it a joke? DHCP has an extension mechanism, not ICMP.
2) - with the ICMP message, the ISP can change the port range
without having to
In your previous mail you wrote:
I failed to see how Stateless DS-Lite is different from B4 translated
DS-lite. We need to first understand what sd-NAT is trying to solve, then
decide whether it is needed or not.
= I agree and IMHO they have the same issue: the per-CPE port range
is far
In your previous mail you wrote:
+1
Re-,
Please see inline.
(I cut here: too long and unreable with not-ASCII characters,
quoted-printable silly coding and long lines)
Regards
francis.dup...@fdupont.fr
___
Softwires mailing list
-b4-translated-ds-lite
Objet : Re: [Softwires] draft-penno-softwire-sdnat vs.
draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite
In your previous mail you wrote:
(*) Question 1: It is not clear in text if there is
a second NAT
in the AFTR or not. Could you please confirm/infirm
...@tools.ietf.org
Objet : Re: [Softwires] draft-penno-softwire-sdnat vs.
draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite
(2) Unlike draft-penno-*, draft-cui-* does not mandate any proffered
provisioning means for port ranges; a list of alternatives is
provided in draft-cui-* without any
Hi Med, see inline response to your questions wrt sd-nat-02
On Mar 13, 2012, at 10:58 AM,
mohamed.boucad...@orange.commailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
mohamed.boucad...@orange.commailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
(*) Question 1: It is not clear in text if there is a second
Hi Alain,
It's a little confusing now. Let me try to get things clear.
So the sd-nat-02 is not quite similar to the earlier version, the
mechanism somehow changes.
In my understanding, now the principle of the mechanism is similar to
the lightweight 4over6 draft, but I may miss something here.
In your previous mail you wrote:
In your previous mail you wrote:
(*) Question 1: It is not clear in text if there is a second NAT
in the AFTR or not. Could you please confirm/infirm a second NAT
is present?
= there is one but:
- it translates
-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite
Objet : Re: [Softwires] draft-penno-softwire-sdnat vs.
draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite
Hi Med, see inline response to your questions wrt sd-nat-02
On Mar 13, 2012, at 10:58 AM,
mohamed.boucad...@orange.commailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.
com
In your previous mail you wrote:
However, the draft seems give people impression there is only one NAT
at CPE(i.e. 2.3. Stateless DS-Lite CPE operation) and AFTR is
responsible for decapsulation and IPv4 package validation. Did I miss
something?
= yes, the SD-CGN (the SD-AFTR with
In your previous mail you wrote:
= I leave the draft-penno-* unclear items to Reinaldo...
(note: 1- it should be not what we want as it makes CPEs trivial
to track, 2- it doesn't remove the mandatory check on source ports
in the from CPE to the Internet way)
Med: I
I am a little lost. Let's put the double-nat aside for a moment. Except
the fact that sd-nat uses icmp for port-set provisioning, what else
different between Lightweight 4over6 vs. sd-nat? Am I missing something?
For Lightweight 4over6, we can use anycast for redundancy. I fail to see
what sd-nat
In your previous mail you wrote:
(*) Question 1: It is not clear in text if there is a second NAT
in the AFTR or not. Could you please confirm/infirm a second NAT
is present?
in sd-nat, packets originated by an sd-CPE will be 'shaped' to use the
correct IPv4
Me too.
And another comment:
In sd-nat, it says More importantly, that draft (lightweight 4over6) does
not explain how this solution can be deployed in a regular DS-Lite
environment.
I think this is a deployment issue and lightweight 4over6 can definitely be
deployed in a regular DS-Lite
In your previous mail you wrote:
(*) Question 1: It is not clear in text if there is a second NAT
in the AFTR or not. Could you please confirm/infirm a second NAT
is present?
= there is one but:
- it translates only port numbers following an algorithm
- the NAT is
Hi Francis,
Thanks for your reply. Please see inline.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Francis Dupont
francis.dup...@fdupont.frwrote:
In your previous mail you wrote:
(*) Question 1: It is not clear in text if there is a second NAT
in the AFTR or not. Could you please
2012/3/14, Francis Dupont francis.dup...@fdupont.fr:
In your previous mail you wrote:
(*) Question 1: It is not clear in text if there is a second NAT
in the AFTR or not. Could you please confirm/infirm a second NAT
is present?
= there is one but:
- it translates
29 matches
Mail list logo
