On 1 August 2011 18:21, Rémi Després <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 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: > All of the current Stateless46 variants TRANSLATE Layer 4 (TCP/UDP) + layer 3 (IPv4) info into Layer 3 (IPv6). Would be happy to use another term if... > - This ensures e2e transparency, > - At least for customers that are assigned exclusive IPv4 addresses, this > e2e transparency is important (IP options, TOS, maybe others). > Perhaps for some, but for some the loss of IP Options vs the efficiencies/gains in other areas are a price worth paying. (note: we have already agreed that TOS transparency is achievable with either mode) Cheers, Woj. > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
