Dear Gang,

> That is not practicable. You can't do such modification on innumerable hosts.

Who says only "innumerable" hosts will want to have this? My view on this is, 
that these proposals are not meant to solve only a specific
problem for a specific scenario. Why would we want that? If we do proposals this
way, we will lost ourselves among very similar but a bit different standards.
It's more complex to "administer" such set of standards and it is much harder
for the developers to crawl through all these documents in order to implement
what they need.

> Sorry. I still can't see much benefits from that.

I'll try harder to deliver possible real-world scenarios:

1. Home Torrent node.
---------------------

I am a customer of an ISP who deployed one of the A+P mechanisms. I have a home
server which is also able to run Torrent client. And since this is a new server,
it happens to support the A+P mechanism of the ISP. So I can plug it directly
to my ISP-provided link (modem, CPE, switch, whatever), and everything /just 
works/. This way:

- I don't have to deal with static RFC 1918 addressing, 

- I don't have to deal with static NAT configuration on the CPE,

- I don't have to deal with with additional port configuration on my Torrent 
box. 

- ...

It just works.

2. Enterprise server mode.
--------------------------

I am a network/system administrator for my company, which has a very limited
set of public IPv4 addresses. But as I don't want to maintain a separate IPv4
addressing infrastructure in my network, my server network will be IPv6-only
as well. However, the servers still need IPv4 connectivity, and for that I'd
like to use A+P. This way:

- I don't need any special ALGs for my servers, which I would have to develop
first since I am using my own proprietary protocols, which can't traverse NATs 
well,

- I don't need to maintain IPv4 in my network where I don't want to have it,
especially I don't need to maintain _another_ IPv4 addressing (RFC 1918),

- I get rid of stateful NAT44 in the core, which is very difficult to make
highly available properly (state synchronization).

- ...

----

Can you see the benefits now?

Thanks,
Nejc
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

Reply via email to