Any operator wired/wireless/whatever can deploy dual stack and NAT/CGN, and
there is abundant evidence of that. Equally well, any operator can deploy
stateless (once we actually have it) Some may also choose to do a mix. Some
may do neither... In fact this is what is said to be an operator's choice.

-Woj.


On 1 August 2011 17:24, 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.
>
> 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
>
>
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

Reply via email to