Le 1 août 2011 à 11:26, Jan Zorz @ go6.si a écrit : > On 7/30/11 3:38 PM, Satoru Matsushima wrote: >> On 2011/07/30, at 8:26, Peng Wu wrote: >>>> >>>> a) Stateful+Dynamic port sets: e.g. DS-Lite >>>> b) Stateful+Static port set: e.g. draft-cui-softwire-host-4over6-06 >>>> c) Stateless + Static port set: e.g. 4rd, 4via6 translation >>>> d) Stateless + Dynamic port set: ??(Any candidate solution?) >>> >>> I would say that the last one makes no sense >> >> Agree. It is a problem space only on that logical frame. >> I think that the analysis work doesn't need to insist necessity of >> unfeasible area solution. > > Well, A+P got enormous amounts of criticism because there was no dynamic > allocations of additional ports.
These criticisms are not necessarily well placed. Note that direct CE-CE paths (which some ISP's WANT to have), are incompatible with dynamic allocations of additional ports. ISP's that want to offer dynamic allocations can always have these, loosing then the advantage of direct CE-CE paths. > Now we don't need that anymore, just because stateless solution can't handle > it by design? We don't need it because that keeps networks simple and efficient. The debate is AFAIK still open. > I love stateless a+p flavors, but imho we'll need both solutions, stateless > and statefull and both of them with dynamic port ranges or sets, whatever you > might call them. Stateless "per customer IPv6 prefix" is incompatible with dynamic port ranges assignable to customers. Cheers, RD > > Cheers, Jan Zorz > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
