> (c) N:1
>> model: a single CGN serve a group of PGW/GGSN. Indeed,
> having +16M of customers
>> is a valid case. **BUT** which Service
> Provider will accept to service this huge
>> amount of UEs with the
> same node (if we suppose that a mega centralised CGN
>> implementation
> is found in the market)? This is single point of failure design
>>
> which SHOULD NOT BE RECOMMENDED.
>
> IMHO it is N:1 and that's why
> GI-DS lite is interesting to the operators. I agree with you that having 16M+
> MNs NAT'ed by a single CGN is something I have not heard of, yes there there
> is
> a problem.
co-chair hat off:
This is the N:P aspect that I
> find interesting in GI-DS-lite. And it does not have to be limited to 16M+
> address being concentrated... nor be limited to wireless.
Think about an ISP
> with a number of access router and a number of centralized NATs. Each
> customer
> connected to an access router is using his own version of RFC1918.
What
> GI-DS-lite enable is to implement the NAT function in a different box that
> potentially has different scaling properties than the access
> router.
This is good point, yes it could be N:P which could help in scaling. However
I'd rather not see GI-DS Lite applicability in ISP networks because of missing
things in CGN like PCP. At least currently we don't seem to need such things
for mobile nodes.
Regards,
Behcet
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
