Le 1 août 2011 à 17:44, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) a écrit : > 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.
Note that with stateless mappings + encapsulation, "stateless NAT" is an inappropriate wording, because there is no translation: - This ensures e2e transparency, - At least for customers that are assigned exclusive IPv4 addresses, this e2e transparency is important (IP options, TOS, maybe others). Cheers, RD > > 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
