We agree that different operators (whether in 3GPP/mobile space or Wireline (DSL/Cable/Fiber) space) would embrace stateful or stateless NAT based solution, per their short-term & long-term plans and associated constraints.
Perhaps, it could be phrased a bit better in the draft, but that's not to say that stateless NAT/A+P becomes inapplicable to a particular space right away. Cheers, Rajiv > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of Cameron Byrne > Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 11:36 AM > To: Rémi Després > Cc: Softwires-wg; Paco Cortes; Wojciech Dec (wdec) > Subject: Re: [Softwires] 3gpp related comments on draft-dec-stateless-4v6-02 > > > On Aug 1, 2011 8:24 AM, "Rémi Després" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > Of course, agreed. > > > 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 > > > > The authors may want to note this point. > > > > > Regards, > > RD > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
