Hi Jacni,
Le 3 nov. 2011 à 05:13, Jacni Qin a écrit :
...
Saying if you are not happy with port sharing, we give you a full address is
relatively straightforward and can be translated into marketing terms.
Anything in between is more questionable. This is a question that should be
taken
Remi,
[...]
Furthermore, there is already an approach adopted by the WG for public IPv4
address case,
if the MAP just covers shared address with one single sharing ratio for one
domain,
the design will be greatly simplified?
Requiring ISPs to maintain IPv4 routing in their networks,
Le 3 nov. 2011 à 09:50, Jacni Qin a écrit :
if the MAP just covers shared address with one single sharing ratio for
one domain,
the design will be greatly simplified?
Requiring ISPs to maintain IPv4 routing in their networks, just to serve the
few users that need to keep IPv4 prefixes,
Hi Rémi, all,
Since there is only an excerpt of e-mails, I lost the context.
Could you please clarify what is the issue discussed here? Thanks.
Cheers,
Med
-Message d'origine-
De : Rémi Després [mailto:despres.r...@laposte.net]
Envoyé : jeudi 3 novembre 2011 10:05
À : Jacni
All,
after the Softwires Interim meeting in Beijing, a design team was tasked with
producing a document with a common mechanism for Mapping of Address and Port. a
mechanism that could be common for all the proposed stateless IPv4 over IPv6
mechanisms (dIVI-PD, 4rd-{E,T,U}, Stateless 4over6,
Le 3 nov. 2011 à 10:14, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
mohamed.boucad...@orange.com a écrit :
Hi Rémi, all,
Since there is only an excerpt of e-mails, I lost the context.
Could you please clarify what is the issue discussed here? Thanks.
Sure.
Right or wrong, I understood that what Jacni
Le 3 nov. 2011 à 10:04, Ole Troan a écrit :
...
Requiring ISPs to maintain IPv4 routing in their networks, just to serve the
few users that need to keep IPv4 prefixes, seems to me a step backward.
can you clarify why this? I don't understand why IPv4 routing has to be
maintained just
Hi Olivier,
see inlines :)
--
Peng Wu
Hello, thanks for this interesting draft.
In your use case, could you explain if every CPE/Host need to reach
Internet? That would be the case in a typical Broadband deployment but
perhaps not in your deployment scenario.
Could be every CPE/Host.
As far as I understood, keeping IPv4 prefix in the mapping facilitated the use
of IPv4 subnets, am I interpreting it right?
Regards,
Tina
-Original Message-
From: softwires-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Rémi Després
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011
Hello Peng,
Some comments inline...
On 11/3/11 5:12 AM, Peng Wu peng...@foxmail.com wrote:
Hi Olivier,
see inlines :)
--
Peng Wu
Hello, thanks for this interesting draft.
In your use case, could you explain if every CPE/Host need to reach
Internet? That would be the case
Just to make sure I understand this.
Deterministic (statefull) NAT is deterministically translating inside IP to
outside IP + port range (take NAT44 case).
Deterministic stateLESS NAT is deterministically translating inside IP +
inside_src_port to outside IP + outside_src_port.
No states are
Hello Kristian,
comments inline.
On 11/3/11 4:38 PM, Poscic, Kristian (Kristian)
kristian.pos...@alcatel-lucent.com wrote:
Just to make sure I understand this.
Deterministic (statefull) NAT is deterministically translating inside IP to
outside IP + port range (take NAT44 case).
Yes.
hi Remi,
On 11/3/2011 5:04 PM, Rémi Després wrote:
Le 3 nov. 2011 à 09:50, Jacni Qin a écrit :
if the MAP just covers shared address with one single sharing ratio for one
domain,
the design will be greatly simplified?
Requiring ISPs to maintain IPv4 routing in their networks, just to serve
hi,
On 11/3/2011 5:24 PM, Rémi Després wrote:
Le 3 nov. 2011 à 10:04, Ole Troan a écrit :
...
Requiring ISPs to maintain IPv4 routing in their networks, just to serve the
few users that need to keep IPv4 prefixes, seems to me a step backward.
can you clarify why this? I don't understand why
Hi，Peeno，
In section 4.5 of the SDNAT draft you've given a mapping function example. I'm
not quite get the meaning of the stateless algorithm.
Say the maxpot is 1024, so we get the i = floor((65535-1024) / 1024 ) = 63. I
cannot find the definition of the P, does it mean the number of addresses
15 matches
Mail list logo
