Hi, Med, and Nejc, Please see inline.
> > You indeed loose agressive sharnig ratio, but you have somewhat more > flexible addressing. Also, the CPEs can be then really simple devices, > excluding any of the NAPT functionality, doing only stateless > encapsulation. > However, what you loose/gain is irrelevant for my point. I think this > section should be modified in a way like the logging section or any > other appropriate way, which explains, that this is not the benefit of > the stateless nature, but rather the benefit of the static port allocation. > > [Qiong]: +1 Agree. > Med: Your point is valid and the text should be updated accordingly. My > comment aims to show that the comparison is not so that trivial. We can > claim the stateful with port ranges can provide similar features as the > stateless or the binding mode but we always forget to mention this lead to > loose one of the characteristics of the stateful. We captured a similar > discussion in > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-operators-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-01#section-4.2 > : > [Qiong]: In our situation, we do not regard aggressive sharing ratio as a vital important feature since the static port multiplex ratio is already enough for us. Besides, even for session-based CGN like ds-lite, we would still prefer to pre-define port-range for customers because our centralized log server can not deal with massive session-based log events. So it seems more reasonable for us to adopt static port arrangement which can largely reduce the log volume. Best regards Qiong Sun > > "5.2. Port Utilisation Efficiency > > CGN-based solutions, because they can dynamically assign ports, > provide better IPv4 address sharing ratio than stateless solutions > (i.e., can share the same IP address among a larger number of > customers). For Service Providers who desire an aggressive IPv4 > address sharing, a CGN-based solution is more suitable than the > stateless. > > If a Service Provider adopts an aggressive address sharing ratio, > it is likely to be attempted by enforcing a NAT port overloading > mode and as a consequence some applications will break. > > However, as more and more hosts become dual-stack enabled, the need > for ports in IPv4 is likely to decrease. The insurance to have the > full set of 64K ports per host will be one of the incentives to have > them IPv6 capable. Moreover, Service Providers should offload some > services to IPv6 (e.g., DNS, VoIP)." > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
