Indeed, there is nothing here which says that this or that operator or body needs to do or adopt something. It leaves the pro/con for the operator to weigh, but to do that there must be some context. This draft thus illustrates not only the issues attributable to A+P based solutions and their impact, but also a likely impact to various system contexts formed by standard/generic architectures. It happened to have been written with operator input and in doing that we think it provides a useful picture (ie how this stuff may actually be used in a system).
Regards, Wojciech. On 1 August 2011 18:37, Cameron Byrne <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
