Hello,
I have some comments on your draft, see inline.
Regards,
Nejc
---------------
2. Terminology
This document makes use of the following terms:
Stateful 4/6 solution (or stateful solution in short): denotes a
solution where the network maintains user-session
states relying on the activation of a NAT
function in the Service Providers' network
[I-D.ietf-behave-lsn-requirements]. The NAT
function is responsible for sharing the same IPv4
address among several subscribers and to maintain
user-session state.
Stateless 4/6 solution (or stateless solution in short): denotes a
solution which does not require any user-session
state (seeSection 2.3 of [RFC1958]) to be
maintained by any IP address sharing function in
the Service Provider's network. This category of
solutions assumes a dependency between an IPv6
prefix and IPv4 address. In an IPv4 address
sharing context, dedicated functions are required
to be enabled in the CPE router to restrict the
source IPv4 port numbers. Within this document,
"port set" and "port range" terms are used
interchangeably.
[NS: If we consider a "stateful A+P" solution, we don't necessarily
have a dependency between an IPv6 prefix and IPv4 address. Also, we
don't have any user-session state in the Service Provider's network.
We do, however, have some user state (in order to do stateful tunneling,
for example). Maybe this is included in "user-session" in your
terminology, but then I think it would be appropriate to define the
term "user-session" clearly.]
...
3.1.5. Bandwidth Saving
In same particular network scenarios (e.g., wireless network ),
spectrum is very valuable and scarce resource. Service providers
usually wish to eliminate unnecessary overhead to save bandwidth
consumption in such environment. Service providers need to consider
optimizing the form of packet processing when encapsulation is used.
Since existing header compression techniques are stateful, it is
expected that stateless solution minimize overhead introduced by the
solution.
[NS: I don't understand this section, but that may be just me.
Maybe is there a better way to explain the point?]
...
3.3.1. Implicit Host Identification
Service Providers do not offer only IP connectivity services but also
added value services (a.k.a., internal services). Upgrading these
services to be IPv6-enabled is not sufficient because of legacy
devices. In some deployments, the delivery of these added-value
services relies on implicit identification mechanism based on the
source IPv4 address. Due to address sharing, implicit identification
will fail [I-D.ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues]; replacing
implicit identification with explicit authentication will be seen as
a non acceptable service regression by the end users (less Quality of
Experience (QoE)).
When a stateless solution is deployed, implicit identification for
internal services is likely to be easier to implement: the implicit
identification should be updated to take into account the port range
and the IPv4 address. Techniques as those analyzed in
[I-D.boucadair-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis] are not required for the
delivery of these internal services if a stateless solution is
deployed.
[NS: I don't think this is true only for stateless
solutions. If we have a stateful solution with static port allocation
(as you mention in section 3.1.3), then implementing such an implicit
host identification which uses also port information, is doable as
well.]
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
