2011/8/1 Rajiv Asati (rajiva) <[email protected]>: >> I appreciate that, and agree that the case for stateless A+P mapping is >> clearer for DSL and optical fibers than for 3GPP > > There are other 3GPP operators who favor using stateless A+P mapping, so I > would shy away from the above agreement. Of course, different operators have > different constraints that make them favor one or the other solution, as you > rightly said. >
Is it possible for those 3GPP operators to speak for themselves and not via a vendor? If not, i understand. I always consider the source of information. I am looking to avoid an echo chamber where the IETF is doing something it thinks the 3GPP wants and therefore the 3GPP adopts something that it thinks the IETF wants. Does that make sense? I would prefer that the draft drop reference to 3GPP since this is a generic solution, right? It is not appropriated to try and sell/target this solution in the RFC to a particular market segment. There is no specific 3GPP engineering in this solution, so lets just say it is a generic solution. Or, we can go a step further and call it NAT464, then people would intuitively know what it is. Cameron > Cheers, > Rajiv > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >> Behalf >> Of Rémi Després >> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 11:25 AM >> To: Cameron Byrne >> Cc: Softwires-wg; Paco Cortes; Wojciech Dec (wdec) >> Subject: Re: [Softwires] 3gpp related comments on draft-dec-stateless-4v6-02 >> >> 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
