Thank you. I can see that this kind of DS-Lite is good for core network. But in my consideration, the major problem which might impede the deployment of DS-Lite is that it has to take control of end-user's CPE. However, in this case, we not only have to deploy two endpoints, but also the addtional endpoint of AFTR. And the function of AFTR is a little too complicated, including double tunnel encapsulation, CGN, CGN-related ALG, etc. So why does CPE have to locate in IPv6-only environment? Can it possible that CPE can still send and receive IPv4 packet, while AFTR and ICXF locate in IPv6-only environment?
Thank you. Qiong SUN 在 2010年3月23日 上午4:03，Lee, Yiu <[email protected]>写道： > As Med replied in a different email, the CPE is the B4 in the ds-lite draft > which performs v4-over-v6 tunnel for v4 packets. No NAT-44 will happen in > B4. > > > > On 3/22/10 10:28 AM, "孙琼" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Boucadair, > > I'm wondering if I have missed something in this draft. I can understand > that in this extended DS-Lite, ICXF is core stateless and it is quite > scalable for core routers. However, since CPEs can send both IPv4 packet and > IPv6 packet to AFTR, it will then include double NAT problem if we have to > allocate private IPv4 address to CPEs. Then what is the advantage of this > kind of DS-Lite vs. NAT666 plus dual stack? > > Thank you very much. > > Best regards > > Qiong SUN > > ------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
