Remi-san has simply pointed out that the service use case section of the draft assumes same implication in the ds-lite draft. I think that it would be no problem, and better to just remove the use case section, because the draft already expressed it as target space table in the introduction.
Best regards, --satoru On 2011/05/10, at 14:57, <mohamed.boucad...@orange-ftgroup.com> wrote: > Hi Rémi, > > I understand your point but, and speaking as individual author of the draft, > my organization does not recommend for the mobile context for instance any > transition solution requiring specific functions in the host (this is also > the position of the 3GPP IPv6 SI). The main reason is, unlike the CPE case, > we don't control the host. > > Cheers, > Med > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Rémi Després [mailto:remi.desp...@free.fr] > Envoyé : lundi 9 mai 2011 18:37 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP > Cc : Satoru Matsushima; Yiu Lee; Olaf Bonness; Isabel Borges; Softwires-wg > Objet : Re: [Softwires] Motivation draft for stateless v4 over v6 solution > > > Le 9 mai 2011 à 15:37, <mohamed.boucad...@orange-ftgroup.com> > <mohamed.boucad...@orange-ftgroup.com> a écrit : >> ... >> >> Med: For the sake of easing the readability of the document, I added "Within >> this document "port set" and "port range" are used interchangeably." instead >> of repeating each time both terms. > > "Port set" throughout would IMHO have been better, but what you added is good > enough. > Thanks. > >>> 2. Sec 3. IPv4 Service Use case >>> >>> While the "Host based model is out of scope", it would be IMHO good to note >>> that: >>> "The model can however apply to any host that includes a CPE function". >>> >>> Med: I prefer having the explicit statement to say the host-based model is >>> out of scope. >> >> Same view. >> The intended proposal wasn't to delete this sentence (sorry if it wasn't >> clear enough). >> It is just to add the new sentence after it. >> >> Med: One can consider a host embedding a CPE function as a router, no? > > Some clarification may be needed for a common understanding. > In the DS-lite draft, we have, concerning the host-based architecture: > "This architecture is targeted at new, large scale deployments of dual-stack > capable devices implementing a dual-stack lite interface." > > I don't see why the stateless solution couldn't have a host-based variant > "targeted at new, large scale deployments of dual-stack capable devices > implementing" the CPE router function. > > Just saying "host-based models are out of scope" seems to me more negative > than needed. > > > The host-based DS-lite architecture is illustrated by: > " +-------------------+ > | | > | Host 192.0.0.2 | > |+--------+--------+| > || B4 || > |+--------+--------+| > +--------|||--------+ > |||2001:db8:0:1::1 > ||| > |||<-IPv4-in-IPv6 softwire > ||| > -------|||------- > / ||| \ > | ISP core network | > \ ||| / > -------|||------- > ||| > |||2001:db8:0:2::1 > +--------|||--------+ > | AFTR | > |+--------+--------+| > || Concentrator || > |+--------+--------+| > | |NAT| | > | +-+-+ | > +---------|---------+ > |192.0.2.1 > | > --------|-------- > / | \ > | Internet | > \ | / > --------|-------- > | > |198.51.100.1 > +-----+-----+ > | IPv4 Host | > +-----------+ " > > The host-based stateless-IPv4/IPv6 architecture can similarly be illustrated > by. > " +-------------------+ > | Host | > | RFC 1918 address | > |+--------+--------+| > || Stateless v4/v6 || > || CPE function || > || (incl. NAPT44) || > |+--------+--------+| > +--------|||--------+ > |||2001:db8:0:1::1 > ||| > |||<-IPv4-in-IPv6 stateless > ||| > -------|||------- > / ||| \ > | ISP core network | > \ ||| / > -------|||------- > ||| > |||2001:db8:0:2::1 > +--------|||--------+ > | Stateless | > | IPv4/IPv6 | > | interconnection | > | function | > +---------|---------+ > |192.0.2.1 > | > --------|-------- > / | \ > | Internet | > \ | / > --------|-------- > | > |198.51.100.1 > +-----+-----+ > | IPv4 Host | > +-----------+ " > > Am I missing something? > > Regards, > RD > > > > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
