Hi Cameron. Inline please,
2011/7/28 Cameron Byrne <[email protected]> > On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Hui Deng <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Cameron, > > > > You may need spend time to review it later, it's different from 6RD and > > DS-Lite, > > > > I just now read it in more detail. My first piece of feedback is that > it is too long :) I assume future revisions will be more tight. I > would also say that the translation part be put into a separate draft > that goes to BEHAVE. > > I believe the mapped mode has some similar challenges in mobile as > DS-lite. It is an IP in IP tunnel. It is really a non-starter in > 3GPP networks as the draft amply notes. I believe it is best to state > that clearly for the 3GPP case, and move on without elaboration. > > The translation mode looks like NAT464, and i like it NAT464 + DNS64 > since it solves a real problem, as noted here > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave/current/msg09480.html > > ==>I think your observation is correct. > Is the reference to RFC6053 right? > > "The operation of the 4V6 CE and > gateway are very similar, if not identical, to that of stateless > NAT64 as specified in RFC 6053." > > So is this right? > > CPE/UE (NAT46) --->ipv6 only network--> NAT64 (stateless port restricted) > > And the port-set is delivered via some encoding in the IPv6 address > assigned to the UE? This is clever. I remain concerned about being > able to engineer stateless port allocations that sufficiently meet > everyone's needs with a limited free public IPv4 pool vs. dynamic > allocation. I do not have much experience with stateless LSN, i am > not sure anyone has much experience at scale with port restricted > stateless? I believe there are ways of going beyond 65k ports per > IPv4 address in stateful, what about in stateless? I think this will > be a requirement as the IPv4 pool keeps getting stretched thin. > > ==>the scenario is right, for port assignment, 2000 ports assignment per user would be fine? the algorithm allow dynamic port assignment. > Right now, i feel like it would be easier for the IETF to just define > NAT464 in general and stateless translation 4V6 is a flavor of NAT464. > > I understand the allure of stateless. But, IMHO the address > multiplexing of stateful is very useful and many large SPs already run > this way, and that operational experience is very important. The IPv6 > transition space is becoming very crowded, i personally would like to > see more work to make IPv6 a true replacement for IPv4 instead of yet > another transition mechanism that meets some set for checkboxs. > > ==> stateless 464 is good in his own environment, it may not be able to compatible with NAT64 or others, stateful 464 has advantage which could work with others, will see. -Hui > This architecture is complicated. > > CB >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
