Le 12 août 2010 à 03:50, Alain Durand a écrit : > > 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
