On Aug 11, 2010, at 6:00 PM, Ralph Droms wrote:
>
>> 2. If the number of assignable IPv4 addresses is for a start multiplied by
>> 10, by statically sharing ports of each address among 10 customers, this
>> still leaves several thousands of IPv4 ports per customer. (Exactly 6144
>> ports per customer if, as appropriate, the first 4K ports, that include
>> well-known ports and have special value are excluded).
>
> Agreed; one could argue that even sharing an IPv4 address among 5 customers
> allows 5x as many customers in the existing IPv4 address assignment, which
> should be more than enough to bridge the gap until IPv6 is available.
The later part of this comment is IMHO a matter of opinion... It is very hard
to know for sure how much IPv4 translation will be needed in the feature.
The major issue with any scheme that allocates a fixed number of ports is what
do you do when that number is exhausted?
How do you even know this is happening? This may or may bot be an issue if we
are talking about 10k ports per customers,
but as pressure mounts on the IPv4 space and the address compression ratio need
to be increased, you soon end-up with much less ports per customers. And then
what?
>> 3. Where applicable static sharing is much simpler to operate.
>
> Agreed.
Logs can indeed be simpler to manage, sure. But this is a trade-off. Other
parts of the systems are more complex, see above.
All this being said, the discussion of the advantages or inconvenients of A+B
belong to the A+P mailing list.
- Alain.
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
