I think a lot of the text in section 8.4.1 is a matter of opinion or 
speculation; perhaps it would be better to describe the pros and cons of 
dynamic and fixed port assignment without making a recommendation before we 
have much deployment experience.

- Ralph

On Aug 11, 2010, at 6:50 PM 8/11/10, Alain Durand wrote:

> 
> 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

_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

Reply via email to