On 2011/08/02, at 5:14, Jan Zorz @ go6.si wrote: > On 8/1/11 5:04 PM, Qiong wrote: >> So, this is a problem about how to define appropriate port set for our >> customers, or to define maximum concurrent subscribers for a given IPv4 >> address pool. Otherwise, there would either be a waste of resource, or >> port exhaustion. Maybe we can even make some more flexible port-set >> rules for different time-slot or different types of users. But anyway, >> this is the problem we have to face in the further, and I also suggest >> that port-consuming applications should upgrade to IPv6 directly. > > hi > > assigning initial port range to every user and then dynamically additional > port ranges (or sets) solves this problem. This was solved for statefull a+p. > stateless still lacks this feature, requested by this wg years ago.
I agree with Qiong. This stateless/stateless and static/dynamic discussion assumes ipv4 over ipv6 environment. Let see Yahoo, Google and Facebook, have already been on ipv6. We don't need to take care about ports for these sites(hopefully iTunes in near future). I also agree with that it would be more significant to allocate appropriate port sets which are outside of default static port sets for customer demand than ports exhaustion in the v4 over v6 network. cheers, --satoru _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
