> I appreciate that, and agree that the case for stateless A+P mapping is > clearer for DSL and optical fibers than for 3GPP
There are other 3GPP operators who favor using stateless A+P mapping, so I would shy away from the above agreement. Of course, different operators have different constraints that make them favor one or the other solution, as you rightly said. Cheers, Rajiv > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Rémi Després > Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 11:25 AM > To: Cameron Byrne > Cc: Softwires-wg; Paco Cortes; Wojciech Dec (wdec) > Subject: Re: [Softwires] 3gpp related comments on draft-dec-stateless-4v6-02 > > 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
