Dear Behcet, > A+P is the same case if I understand correctly. NAT44 is one of three > fundamental functions in A+P architecture. Otherwise, it can’t connect > to legacy end-hosts.
It _is_ fundamental, however it is not mandatory in all scenarios. Please see draft-ymbk-aplusp-10 (which defines A+P architecture and has been approved RFC status in June), page 16, Figure 6. It clearly shows two different customers. Customer2 must use NAT44, naturally, since his hosts don't support the specific A+P mechanism themselves. Customer1, however, has his hosts connected directly into the A+P network. This is because his hosts _have_ native A+P support for the specific mechanism. And I think that "draft-murakami-softwire-4v6-translation" should also support these kind of scenarios (as all other A+P mechanism drafts do). Thanks, Nejc _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
