Hi Ole, I read your 4rd draft. As far as I know, the current 4rd draft supports 3 models:
1. An IPv4 prefix 2. Full IPv4 address (No port sharing) 3. IPv4 address and a range of ports So case 2 is equal to 4over6. Is my understanding right? Thanks, Yiu On 4/1/11 6:05 AM, "Ole Troan" <[email protected]> wrote: >> Absolutely. L2TP tunnels are widely use in many areas including 4over6. >> The motivation of this draft is to extend dslite to re-use the same >> framework to provision a public IP to the B4 element and the AFTR not to >> NAT. I agree RFC5571 can achieve the same objective, but this will make >> the deployment easier to do two functions on the AFTR. Does this make >> sense to you? > >Yiu explained this to me during PCP, and I think I get it now. > >this is for the case where one has already deployed DS-lite to a customer. >for whatever reason DS-lite fails for this end user (e.g. some >application doesn't work through the CGN). > >4over6 provides a solution for provisioning a non NATed non port >restricted public IPv4 address to this end user. > >seems to me a very valid use case and something we should measure all of >the 4 over 6 mechanisms (ds-lite, 4rd, divi...) against. > >cheers, >Ole > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
