See inline: On 3/30/11 12:55 PM, "Ole Troan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>reading drafts during the plenary post working group session. > >1) what does this solution offer that isn't in RFC5571? different >encapsulation? Similar but there is a major difference. RFC5571 is 6over4 using l2tpv2 to punch through the NAT. This doesn't need this requirement, so l2tpv2 isn't needed. >2) host initiated. does this propose to support hosts behind a CPE? how >would they then be > provisioned? The idea is the CPE will be the dhcp relay agent which will relay the dhcp requests from the hosts behind the CPE to the dhcp server. That said, there are details we need to sort out such as the CPE must be also provisioned an ipv4 address from the same subnet to support hair-pinning. Also the servers behind the CPE are normal servers, we need to detail how/when to create the binding in the NAT table so that it won't require the servers to send keepalive to the TC. Regards, Yiu > >cheers, >Ole > >_______________________________________________ >Softwires mailing list >[email protected] >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
