Nejc,
Your comments are very helpful for me to arrange my confusion. Thank you.
(2011/08/17 18:46), Nejc Škoberne wrote:
However, in my honest opinion, I am confused a little about target
technology in softwire.
Well, me too. This is why I am trying very hard lately to understand
things first.
I agree.
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.
For DS-Lite, I agree. However, for 4rd NAT is not necessary. As 4rd
draft says:
"Although 4rd is designed primarily to support IPv4 deployment to a
customer site (such as a residential home network) by an SP, it can
equally be applied to an individual host acting as a CE router."
So if you have a host, acting as a CE router, supporting 4rd technology,
you don't need NAPT44 in it. So in this regard, it is completely the
same as SA46T-AS. At least this is how I understand it.
I understand.
In my understanding, DS-Lite is CGN + Tunneling combination, so CGN +
SA46T combination may possible. I think this combination may say DS-Lite.
I wouldn't use DS-Lite in any other context, since it is now an
independent Proposed Standard. It is as it is. The tunneling there is
clearly specified.
I think that I have a point in your opinion.
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.
Well, not necessarily, why? It's just a technology, I can't see why you
couldn't use it in an enterprise as well?
Yes. I also have interests in an enterprise, and P2P environments, too.
As you say, SA46T and SA46T is just a technology. I think SA46T and
SA46T is just one of the tool for operators and SIers. I hope
inventiveness should possible in any environments and the future.
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.
Well, I don't agree with DS-Lite + SA46T, I would rather make it
"SA46T + CGN". However, since your SA46T-AS already is an address sharing
solution and it mentions NAT in one of the scenarios (in the draft), I don't
think it needs to be combined with anything. So in the end, we have (regarding
SA46T):
- SA46T (tunneling only)
- SA46T+CGN (NAPT44 placed in the core)
- SA46T-AS (directly implemented in the host or NAPT44 placed in the CPE)
Do you agree?
Yes. I agree.
Nejc
Naoki.
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
