Hi, Tina, Agree.
>From the perspective of routing issues discussed these days, I think stateful ones would store customer (lightweight AFTR) /session (DS-Lite/NAT44/NAT64) information, while stateless ones would just store *location-based information* just as traditional routing system. Actually, since stateless ones have combined some kind of user info into these locators (e.g. shared-IPv4 address, port multiplex ratio, etc), it would have some impact on routing system. That's why these configurations in stateless solutions would be a little more complicated than stateful ones. Maybe this is also a tradeoff between different solutions. Best regards Qiong Sun On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Tina TSOU <[email protected]>wrote: > Matsushima-san, > In this draft, we may need to refer or define the definition of > - Stateful operation > - Stateless operation > - Dynamic port allocation > - Static port allocation > > Hope in this way, the discussion could be easier. > > > Best Regards, > Tina TSOU > http://tinatsou.weebly.com/contact.html > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Satoru Matsushima > Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 5:56 AM > To: Qiong > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Softwires] [softwire]comments on stateless 4v6 domain > > Hi Qiong, > > On 2011/07/28, at 4:31, Qiong wrote: > > > Hi, Satoru, > > > > Thanks a lot for your suggestion and I understand it can work. But in my > understanding, it still lies some differences with the so-called "totally > stateless solution". > > I don't mean that 'totally stateless solution' isn't a part of routing > system. > > > Suppose there is only one domain, when an IPv4 downstream packet arrives > at stateless gateway, it would firstly forward to the virtual tunnel > interface (take 4V6 Mapped Tunnel for example) with only one default route. > Then after encapsulated with a uniform IPv6 prefix and IPv4 prefix, etc, it > will lookup IPv6 routing table and forward to 4v6 CE. Here, actually there > is no need to do routing lookup for IPv4 address expect one default route. > > You already did routing when you found default route. > > > > However, if we introduce multiple domains with multiple IPv4 prefix pools > ( the number of each domain is N1, N2, N3,... Nm) , then the entry number of > IPv4 routing table will be N1+N2+N3+..+Nm. In current situation, Nm would > not be a small number anymore. So maybe some more optimization work will > still be needed to make it more "stateless" ? > > What do you mean 'the entry number of IPv4 routing table'? > Do you presume that your IGP routing has almost 300K routes as same number > of current internet full routes? > > Best regards, > --satoru > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
