Hi Peng, > Like I said, the names haven't matched yet. That's the confusion. IMHO, B4NAT > isn't a very formal name, > right? The original words are "DS-Lite with no NAT or NAT on the B4 element", > which covers the full > semantic and however is quite long...That's part of the reason we use a new > name. If you have any > suggestions on the name, it'll be good.
As in a recharter discussion, this is a problem. At least the charter should clearly explain what each charter item is, and also what wg will do. My point is that using words which make clear understand for all people is quite important. So I think that using the word of "B4NAT" as a next charter item is not appropriate. Best regards, --satoru 2011/4/20 Peng Wu <[email protected]>: > Hi Satoru, > > ------------------ > Peng Wu > PhD candidate > Department of Computer Science & Technology > Tsinghua University, Beijing, China > > >>Hi Peng, >> >> >>2011/4/20 Peng Wu <[email protected]>: >>> Hi Satoru, >>> >>> About the item DS-Lite with no NAT or NAT on the B4, it's DS-lite without >>> CGN on the AFTR. >>> Generally B4 will get public IPv4 address allocated from the ISP and use it >>> for IPv4 access. The AFTR will only need to maintain IPv6-IPv4 address >>> mapping without port information. >>> Doing this the addressing and routing between IPv6 and IPv4 are still >>> independent. It's a protocol extenstion to DS-lite, and it can work along >>> with DS-lite. >> >>So you mean that your 4over6 document is a B4NAT document, isn't it? > Yes. >>But I don't find any B4NAT definition in your document though. >>On the other hand, I understand that you propose another 4over6 >>deployment model, which you don't need to use ds-lite terminology. You >>already define 4over6 initiator and concentrator, etc., So I think >>that using "B4NAT" makes confusion. > Like I said, the names haven't matched yet. That's the confusion. IMHO, B4NAT > isn't a very formal name, right? The original words are "DS-Lite with no NAT > or NAT on the B4 element", which covers the full semantic and however is > quite long...That's part of the reason we use a new name. If you have any > suggestions on the name, it'll be good. > About 4over6 TI and TC, we use the terminology because their functions are a > little different to original DS-lite, and there're cases that one would like > to deploy 4over6 independently with no DS-LITE address sharing. Anyhow it's a > detailed issue. >> >>> >>> We've already present it in last three IETF meetings. See >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cui-softwire-host-4over6-04. The general >>> idea is out there, and the only confusion is that the mechanism name hasn't >>> matched yet. >>> We'll come up with a new version with evolvement before next IETF for WG >>> adoption. >> >>I'm confused because current ds-lite document clearly define as follow >>in section 4.2: >> >> "A DS-Lite CPE SHOULD NOT operate a NAT function between an internal >> interface and a B4 interface, as the NAT function will be performed >> by the AFTR in the service provider's network. That will avoid >> accidentally operating in a double NAT environment." >> >>And section 5.1 describes as follow: >> >> "5. B4 element >> 5.1. Definition >> >> The B4 element is a function implemented on a dual-stack capable >> node, either a directly connected device or a CPE, that creates a >> tunnel to an AFTR." >> >>These mean that B4 is equal to CPE, so that B4 cannot has NAT function. >>Is that correct? > Well, that's why it's an “extension” to DS-lite, I don't see problems here. > BTW, in real word, CPEs like home gateway usually support NAT functions > already. > > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
