Hi, Remi, Thanks for your comments. I agree with you that in this situation, stateless solution still superior to stateful ones from scalability aspect. It is "per independent IPv4 prefix" mapping rule database, rather than customer-based. But it still may have some tradeoff for domain realm. The larger the domain it covers, the more independent IPv4 prefix there will be. And also the whole domain has to synchronize these mapping rules.
I think this problem would be quite common for large broadband service providers who already have a huge amount of customers. Do we have to transfer all these legacy customers with public IPv4 address into shared-mode directly? In our consideration, we think it might be better to offer shared-mode solution for new customers only and leave the legacy customers with non-shared-mode solution to avoid complaint from address sharing. As a result, we have to deal with the co-existence scenario for at least shared-mode and non-shared-mode. I agree that this mapping specification can be applied to all stateless solutions, separated from specific solution. Thanks for your suggestion. Best wishes Qiong Sun
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
