Le 6 avr. 2011 à 15:42, Lee, Yiu a écrit : > Remi, > > >> >> The tradeoff could then be summarized as: >> +----------------------------+--------------------+-----------------+ >> | | Stateful (4over6) | Stateless (4rd) | >> +----------------------------+--------------------+-----------------+ >> | Customizable services | + | - | >> | -------------------------- | ------------------ | --------------- | >> | Ease of operation | - | + | >> | -------------------------- | ------------------ | --------------- | >> | Scalability | - | + | >> | -------------------------- | ------------------ | --------------- | >> | Invetment cost | - | + | >> | minimization | | | >> +----------------------------+--------------------+-----------------+ > > This choice of stateful or stateless are not so clear-cut. I guess we all > agree that there are pros and cons in both camps. For example: stateful > would yield better utilization of IPv4 addresses.
Agreed An additional line showing a + for stateful can cover the point. > It also decouples the > IPv4 address from IPv6 address which makes the IPv4 address design a > little easier. Partially agreed. - If all IPv6 customers are given the same number of IPv4 ports, 4rd doesn't imply anything on Pv6 routing., - If there are several 4over6 concentrators, there are constraints on the IPv6 routing to ensure satisfactory load sharing between them with stable routes. - Furthermore, if these concentrators are far from one another, they imply that the IPv4 backbone ensures symmetric routing so that all return traffic from a concentrator comes back to it. > Your table is very much favor to stateless, I think this > doesn't capture all the points. Agreed, at least concerning the first point above. I view it as a convenient discussion tool. Regards, RD > > Regards, > Yiu > >> > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
