For example, no logging has been presented as a strong reason
to do sateless. However, no logging can be achieved
with static port allocation on a centralized NAT. On this
particular logging point, there are no obvious differences between the
'distributed on CPE' NAT solution and the centralized NAT
solution.
To my understand, no logging is one of benifits among others.
In addition, note that even if a centralized NAT configuered
with static port allocation, the centralized NAT still needs to maintain
per-flow state (NAT entires)!
As you point out, the "no logging" part is really a function of the use
of a static mapping to a range of ports. Any centralized NAPT function can use
static mapping. When you use static mapping, then you get all the pros and cons
that go along with it.
More generally, it seems that what is described as a
'stateless' solution should be characterized as a
'distributed state' solution. As such, the tradeoff of
maintaining the state centrally vs globally
needs to be analyzed.
"stateless operation" if you prefer. The point is that within the ISP
network, there is no per-flow state that resides on any single endpoint running
the protocol in question. So, config can be static, and BRs can be reached via
anycast. That's the heart of a stateless solution. Just like 6rd, if you will.
I like this point! No per-flow state is the heart.
Section 18: Single Points of Failure - here, stateless wins pretty much
hands down as it is not introducing any new single points of failure.
One hand.
-Xiaohong
open source PCP Client,
open source A+P
http://opensourcev6transtechnologies.weebly.com/
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
