Cameron, Thanks for the clarification. More below. Le 1 août 2011 à 16:33, Cameron Byrne a écrit : ... > > Some providers may indeed prefer to have only a stateless solution, > > especially in for DSL networks where ISP's provide CPE's, but there is no > > technical reason preventing both solutions to coexist > ... > Many, if not most, 3gpp users get rfc1918 or bogon public addresses today. > Giving my users public addresses using 4v6 stateless probably does not make > sense for me or many similar mobile operators. ... there are not enough > public address to give these users (growth through 2015) each 2000 ports. > I don't se a significant disagreement here.
If you have an overwhelming need for dynamic port sharing, it has to be faced, and you will go for CGN's. I don't argue against this. Some other operators may however have different constraints, and should be permitted to operate whatever simpler solution applies to their case. Note that one can expect that in 2015 users should work mostly, if not exclusively in IPv6, so that their need should be well well below 2000 IPv4 ports for each. > This is just a 3gpp data point, since the draft chooses to include 3gpp as > motivation. > I appreciate that, and agree that the case for stateless A+P mapping is clearer for DSL and optical fibers than for 3GPP Regards, RD
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
