Dear Satoru, >>> 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. >> >> Usually yes, but not necessary. PAT could also do the work, if you connect >> behind CPE a host with public IP address, sort of like "bridged mode", and >> PAT in CPE changes ports to ones inside port-range/set. >> >> This way no address translation is needed, just ports needs to be >> "redirected" to right ones. > > It seems to me that no modification for any system call, correct? > AFAIK, Nejc insists some system call modification, bind(), etc.,
I don't insist on any specific implementation. I just insist on NAPT44 being optional. It may be done with changing the host, but it might be also done with the PAT, as Jan says (although in this case, there are significant other issues). It just doesn't matter how it is done. Again, all other A+P drafts out there, allow for such a scenario. "4via6 translation" is the only one which does not. Thanks, Nejc _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
