Terminology alert:
On 2011-03-31 10:12, Lee, Yiu wrote:
> 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
No, RFC 2529 defines "6over4". Please don't create confusion by using
"6over4" to mean anything except RFC 2529.
Brian
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
