On 8/1/11 5:05 PM, Rémi Després wrote:
Thanks for the quotation. What was "thrown" to you doesn't seem
right, and needs to be challenged.
well, that changed significantly the face of a+p :)
...or maybe that was used to effectively delay the whole process :)
Answer to the question: - The customer doesn't run out of ports
because it has an exclusive private IPv4 address. - If the CPE NAT44
runs out of ports, is just does what it does today in the same
situation. In addition, the probability of the CPE running out of
IPv4 ports in a dual-stack-service site having 4K ports needs not be
higher than in an IPv4-only site having 64K ports.
that's defined in "overall architecture" as a+p-light.
Don't get me wrong, just repeating what we needed to solve in order
to move on from that point.
I think I don't get you wrong, and actually I believe your pioneer
work on the subject has been quite useful. It is just that what you
felt obliged to solve isn't in reality needed in a significant number
of legitimate use cases.
thnx.
obligation came from legitimate questions from community.
cheers, Jan
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
