Hi Ralph, Please ignore the previous message, prematurely sent with no substance in it (apologies).
Le 12 août 2010 à 00:00, Ralph Droms a écrit : >> 1. The text should take into account that "over time" more and more servers >> will have IPv6, and that the full 64K ports are available in IPv6. (The >> mentioned AJAX/Web 2.0 sites would typically enable IPv6 asap, if not done >> yet. This will prevent problems over time.) > > traffic to IPv6 servers just bypasses dual-stack lite altogether, right, so > the limitation doesn't apply to that traffic? Right. Using IPv6 where possible is therefore the best approach against port shortage in IPv4. >> 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. > >> 3. Where applicable static sharing is much simpler to operate. > > Agreed. Apparently, this point should be better documented in IETF. Would draft-ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues-01 be a good place for that? >> If the principle is agreed, I can propose detailed words myself to improve >> the draft. Med has independently suggested to just delete the section on static vs dynamic port allocations from the DS-lite draft. This would be sufficient to cover my point in this draft. Regards, RD _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
