Le 3 août 2011 à 18:04, GangChen a écrit : > 2011/8/3, Rémi Després <[email protected]>: >> >> Also, one should not forget that assigning full IPv4 addresses to DSL >> customers who need it remains possible with stateless solutions (presumably >> at a price, but we know there is no free lunch). > > In some sense, statelss solution could give such flexibilities to > DYNAMICALLY adjust how many ports are available to a sepecific CE. > Does this belong to static port behaviour or dynamic port behaviour?
If stateless means "without per customer state" in BR's, as it should by default in this discussion (IMHO), no dynamic changes of port-set sizes are practicable. But this permits IMHO realistic stateless deployments: as already said on this list, DSL ISP's can propose two tariffs: one for exclusive IPv4 addresses, and a lower one for shared IPv4 addresses with the same number of ports for each. More flexible approaches are clearly possible, but the price paid for this flexibility is having to maintain per-customer states in BR's, and impossible direct CE-CE paths. Regards, RD _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
