Thanks Ole for your explanation. So the public 4over6 is just a slight revision to DS-Lite: We need to remove NAT in DS-Lite and make the client get public IPv4 address.
Yong -----Original Message----- From: Ole Troan <[email protected]> Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2011 12:05:31 +0200 To: "Lee, Yiu" <[email protected]> Cc: Mark Townsley <[email protected]>, Yong Cui <[email protected]>, "[email protected] list" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Softwires] Questions on: draft-cui-softwire-host-4over6 >> 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
