Jan, That limitation is valid, and is well applicable to both stateless and stateful NAT.
In fact, many SPs deploying stateful NAT are already carving per-subscriber limit to solve another key problem in which one subscriber can starve other subscribers. Eureka. :-) So, introducing state doesn't really solve the problem, considering the evolving operational practices. Cheers, Rajiv > -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Zorz @ go6.si [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 10:32 AM > To: Rémi Després > Cc: Rajiv Asati (rajiva); [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Softwires] Clarification of the stateles/stateful discussion > > On 8/1/11 4:22 PM, Rémi Després wrote: > > > > Le 1 août 2011 à 15:36, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) a écrit : > > > >> ... Interesting enough, the static port-set is one of the reasons why many > >> find 4v6 being so useful. > > > > Indeed: operation simplicity, scalability, possible direct CE-CE paths. > > Very legitimate. > > Let me repeat, what was "thrown" at us, when writing ymbk-aplusp: > > "what happens, if customer behind CPE that shares IPv4 address runs out > of ports? Does this mean that all his additional traffic from this point > does not go anywhere? To end customer, this looks like broken internet > connectivity." > > Don't get me wrong, just repeating what we needed to solve in order to > move on from that point. Basically, to solve that we needed to introduce > states at some point. If we can solve this issue on stateless solution, > I'm all for it. > > Cheers, Jan _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
