Nejc,
Basically, I think your point is correct, and I agree with you.
However, in my honest opinion, I am confused a little about target
technology in softwire.
SA46T and SA46T-AS is just a tunneling technology.
The other side, in my understanding, DS-Lite and 4rd is combination
technology of tunneling and NAT.
In my understanding, DS-Lite is CGN + Tunneling combination, so CGN +
SA46T combination may possible. I think this combination may say DS-Lite.
To similar, 4rd make NAT in CPE assumption. I don't understand 4rd is
just tunneling function, or combination with CPE NAT. In the standing
point of SA46T-AS, as you point out, SA46T-AS + CPE NAT combination may
possible.
Both DS-Lite and 4rd is the combination technology for access network.
However, I also have interests to apply SA46T-AS to the server environment.
I think your trade-off analysis is very important. If adding
SA46T/SA46T-AS technology to your analysis table, I think "DS-Lite +
SA46T" and "SA46T-AS + CPE NAT" is appropriate.
Regards,
Naoki Matsuhira.
(2011/08/17 0:53), Nejc Škoberne wrote:
Dear Naoki,
Number of ports can be selected by prefix length.
I see.
So essentially, SA46T-AS is like 4rd, but with a different port-allocation
scheme. Also the "IPv4 plane" feature (you also call it "IPv4 VPN service")
can be seen as a variant of multiple 4rd domains in 4rd context.
Do you agree? If this is so, I don't really see why would we need a separate
specification for this? I mean, we could also define various port-allocation
schemes in the 4rd draft (as in RFC 6056, where we have various port
randomization algorithms available for implementation).
Thanks,
Nejc
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
