Dear Gang, >> as far as I can understand your draft, you make NAPT44 in the CE obligatory. > > [Gang] Yes. This is to avoid the problem where there are applications > that attempt > to bind to specific ports that are not part of the allowed port range.
Well, if the application/operating system supports the standard/protocol/technology, then it should only bind to the port, which CPE would normally use to translate source ports of the packets. If there is no such operating system/application, NAPT44 must be used, of course. >> However, this is not the case for 4rd, dIVI, SA46T-AS and Lightweight >> 4over6 A+P drafts. > > [Gang] I guess this is always the case for port constrained mechanisms. Of course. But you could support various scenarios in the scope of your draft, not only the common "CPE" one. >> So I suggest that you make it optional in 4via6 translation as >> well, since it might >> be desired for some environments to connect hosts supporting 4via6 >> translation >> technology, directly to the IPv6 network. In this case, you don't need >> the translator. > > [Gang] Could you help to elaborate the environment ? Sure. I can imagine a Linux implementation of "4via6 translation support". If enabled, the TCP/IP stack would only bind to specific ports (from the range). If you check the section III./C of the following paper: http://zhuyc.info/globecom08mivi.pdf the authors propose a modification "to the system call related to bind() in the socket library of the operating system". Then I could just connect my home gateway-server directly to the ISPs network, providing support for "4via6 translation" and that's it. Also, I see is as a use case in non-ISP environments, where you could have IPv6-only, but 4via6 enabled server networks, with servers supporting "4via6 translation". Like SA46T-AS, for example. The main advantage of all this is of course that the IPv4 address is then natively configured on the (virtual) interface. -- Other than that, I still am very curious what are the differences between your draft and draft-xli-behave-divi-03. I would be very happy if you could elaborate on that. Thanks, Nejc _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
