Le 2012-03-15 à 10:29, Maoke a écrit :
2012/3/15 Maoke fib...@gmail.com
2012/3/15 Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net
Le 2012-03-15 à 10:02, Maoke a écrit :
2012/3/15 Rémi Després remi.desp...@free.fr
Maoke,
Let's try, once more, to understand each other.
If we
2012/3/15 Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net
Le 2012-03-15 à 10:22, Maoke a écrit :
2012/3/15 Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net
Le 2012-03-15 à 10:02, Maoke a écrit :
2012/3/15 Rémi Després remi.desp...@free.fr
Maoke,
Let's try, once more, to understand each other.
If we
Maoke,
Thanks for this question.
This subject being new, I take it on a new thread.
2012-03-15 10:38, Maoke:
...
i didn't understand the how the stateful NAT64 benefits from CNP.
The point is that if a NAT64 is upgraded to support 4rd-u tunnels (thus
becoming a NAT64+) it can take IPv6
Le 2012-03-15 à 10:59, Rémi Després a écrit :
Maoke,
Thanks for this question.
This subject being new, I take it on a new thread.
2012-03-15 10:38, Maoke:
...
i didn't understand the how the stateful NAT64 benefits from CNP.
The point is that if a NAT64 is upgraded to support 4rd-u
Le 2012-03-15 à 11:45, Maoke a écrit :
i understand NAT64 makes translation between arbitrary IPv6 address to
arbitrary IPv4 address. i don't understand how you make CNP in any IPv6
address.
in other words, we cannot limit NAT64 stateful service only serve those IPv6
addresses with
Le 2012-03-15 à 11:40, Maoke a écrit :
2012/3/15 Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net
Le 2012-03-15 à 10:29, Maoke a écrit :
2012/3/15 Maoke fib...@gmail.com
2012/3/15 Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net
Le 2012-03-15 à 10:02, Maoke a écrit :
2012/3/15 Rémi
2012/3/15 Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net
Le 2012-03-15 à 11:45, Maoke a écrit :
i understand NAT64 makes translation between arbitrary IPv6 address to
arbitrary IPv4 address. i don't understand how you make CNP in any IPv6
address.
in other words, we cannot limit NAT64 stateful
Re-,
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
-Message d'origine-
De : Alain Durand [mailto:adur...@juniper.net]
Envoyé : jeudi 15 mars 2012 12:11
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP
Cc : draft-penno-softwire-sd...@tools.ietf.org; Softwires WG;
draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite
2012/3/15 Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net
Le 2012-03-15 à 11:40, Maoke a écrit :
2012/3/15 Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net
Le 2012-03-15 à 10:29, Maoke a écrit :
2012/3/15 Maoke fib...@gmail.com
2012/3/15 Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net
Le 2012-03-15 à 10:02,
Le 2012-03-15 à 14:52, Maoke a écrit :
2012/3/15 Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net
Le 2012-03-15 à 11:40, Maoke a écrit :
2012/3/15 Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net
Le 2012-03-15 à 10:29, Maoke a écrit :
2012/3/15 Maoke fib...@gmail.com
2012/3/15 Rémi
Le 2012-03-15 à 14:47, Maoke a écrit :
2012/3/15 Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net
Le 2012-03-15 à 11:45, Maoke a écrit :
i understand NAT64 makes translation between arbitrary IPv6 address to
arbitrary IPv4 address. i don't understand how you make CNP in any IPv6
address.
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
2012/3/15 Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net
Le 2012-03-15 à 14:47, Maoke a écrit :
2012/3/15 Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net
Le 2012-03-15 à 11:45, Maoke a écrit :
i understand NAT64 makes translation between arbitrary IPv6 address to
arbitrary IPv4 address. i don't
on the other hand, may i suggest not to term 4rd tunnel anymore? it
confuses. i emphasized it is NOT a TUNNEL to the common understanding at
all (but it seems you never?seldom respond to this point, nor to the ICMP
issue details. ) - maoke
___
Softwires
Hi Authors,
For section 5.3, I think 2 things should be explicitly stated.
1. hairpinning should be supported on the 4over6 concentrator
2. when 4-in-6 packets received, the inner ipv4 src ip address should
be checked against outter ipv6 src ip to see if they are match.
(Actually, this should be
Hi Washam,
Good points. Will add them in the next version.
2012/3/16 Washam Fan washam@gmail.com:
Hi Authors,
For section 5.3, I think 2 things should be explicitly stated.
1. hairpinning should be supported on the 4over6 concentrator
2. when 4-in-6 packets received, the inner ipv4 src
22 matches
Mail list logo
