Hi, Remi, Agree. I only mean that for some extreme use cases where higher priority user would like to apply for more ports. But in the foreseeable future, I also think that two customer classes would be enough.
Thanks. On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 11:53 PM, Rémi Després <[email protected]>wrote: > > Le 1 août 2011 à 17:04, Qiong a écrit : > > ... > > So, this is a problem about how to define appropriate port set for our > customers, or to define maximum concurrent subscribers for a given IPv4 > address pool. Otherwise, there would either be a waste of resource, or port > exhaustion. > > > Maybe we can even make some more flexible port-set rules for different > time-slot or different types of users. > > There is AFAIK no need to make port-set rules themselves more flexible. > > Two customer classes (and tariffs) with standard port-set sizes should IMHO > be sufficient: > - One for exclusive IOPv4 addresses > - One for shared addresses. > Their different port-set sizes are expressed by the difference between > lengths of their IPv6 assigned prefixes. > > Three classes would give even more flexibility, but it doesn't seem to me > necessary. (Keep it simple, stupid!) > > > But anyway, this is the problem we have to face in the further, and > > > I also suggest that port-consuming applications should upgrade to IPv6 > directly. > > Absolutely. > Actually, where native IPv6 addresses are already available, a significant > part of the traffic is already IPv6. > > Regards, > RD > > > > >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
