Dear Qiong,
Yes, port ranges can be used in a CGN-based architecture too to reduce log file
volume as discussed in
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-operators-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-02#section-3.1.3
but then you should be aware you loose a feature offered by the CGN which is:
* The
From: Qiong [mailto:bingxu...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 12:29 AM
To: BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC-NAD-TIP
Cc: softwires@ietf.org;
draft-operators-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivat...@tools.ietf.org
Subject:
Le 17 août 2011 à 10:08, Ole Troan a écrit :
...
Yong and I would like to make a decision soon, please send us email directly
if you intend to come and tell us which set of dates is more convenient.
Please respond by August 11th, we will formally announce the meeting with
the logistic
Dear Naoki,
However, in my honest opinion, I am confused a little about target
technology in softwire.
Well, me too. This is why I am trying very hard lately to understand
things first.
SA46T and SA46T-AS is just a tunneling technology.
The other side, in my understanding, DS-Lite and
Dear authors,
as far as I can understand your draft, you make NAPT44 in the CE obligatory.
However, this is not the case for 4rd, dIVI, SA46T-AS and Lightweight
4over6 A+P
drafts. So I suggest that you make it optional in 4via6 translation as
well, since it might
be desired for some
On 2011-08-17 04:08, Ole Troan wrote:
it would be good to have at least 4 weeks notice for travel arrangements to
be made.
Not only would it be good, it is required.
http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/interim-meetings.html
If we are to meet on September 15-16, the meeting must be announced
Dear Nejc,
as far as I can understand your draft, you make NAPT44 in the CE obligatory.
[Gang] Yes. This is to avoid the problem where there are applications
that attempt
to bind to specific ports that are not part of the allowed port range.
However, this is not the case for 4rd, dIVI,
Dear Gang,
as far as I can understand your draft, you make NAPT44 in the CE obligatory.
[Gang] Yes. This is to avoid the problem where there are applications
that attempt
to bind to specific ports that are not part of the allowed port range.
Well, if the application/operating system
a real life meeting to hash out the stateless solutions is a splendid idea.
But an expensive one too!
Since the announced deadline for practical organization has already been
passed, I personally believe that a better approach is to get enough Softwire
time in Taipei for enough WG work.
+1
Dear Nejc,
On 2011/08/17, at 22:58, Nejc Škoberne wrote:
Dear Gang,
as far as I can understand your draft, you make NAPT44 in the CE obligatory.
[Gang] Yes. This is to avoid the problem where there are applications
that attempt
to bind to specific ports that are not part of the allowed
It seems to me, when delegating CE ipv6 prefix, a longest match might
be used. But when forwarding a IPv4 packet, a longest match is
useless, because domain 4rd prefixes don't overlap.
Thanks,
washam
2011/8/17 Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net:
Le 17 août 2011 à 03:10, Jacni Qin a écrit :
11 matches
Mail list logo
