Hi, Remi, This is just the question I would like to mention. Please see inline.
Several contributors have expressed, in the context of stateless solutions, > wishes to add flexibility to static port set assignment. > > But, where "stateless" has to mean "no per-customer state", this wish is > self-contradictory. > > Now: > - Some ISP's want _direct CE-CE paths_ . > [Qiong] : Agree. This is a good feature for stateless solution. But there might be no big differences from stateful solutions when deploying CGN on the edge of network, e.g. BRAS, etc. > - For this each CE must know mapping rules for all other CE's. > [Qiong]: Agree, especially when applying the co-existence scenario for exclusive-mode and shared mode. Given the fact the IPv4 prefixes are not continuous anymore, there might be up to hundreds/thousands of rules for a certain area. Although I think that it would be not a big problem for stateless GW to handle these rules, I would still doubt the possibility that a customer-side CPE dealing with the same amount of IPv4 prefixes with network-side GW. And another question, when should we announce these rules into CEs and BRs. Since in CE-CE situation, a source should always send a packet with the right destination port in the valid range of destinations. Is it has to been guaranteed by individual applications ? Or does it have some kind of limitations depending on applications ? Thanks. Best regards Qiong Sun - Mapping rules must therefore not depend on any per customer state. > - This doesn't permit dynamic increase of CE-assigned port sets. > > If I missed something, please let me know. > If not, agreement on this point could facilitate the ongoing discussion. > > Thanks, > 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
