>> It will not, because I don't have a legacy SOHO LAN. If I have legacy >> SOHO LAN, I can use (optional) NAT44. > > Exactly, resulting in NAT444 . But if I'm forced to use NAT444 > via a 4 in 6 tunnel anyway, A+P is pointless.
I don't think you understood what I was saying. There is no need for NAT444. Let me explain again. The provider has an A+P solution in place. They will, by default, provide me with their CPE, which supports A+P and also does NAPT44 for my legacy SOHO LAN. In this case, I just plug my computers and everything will work like today, just with not-so-many ports. However, there are at least two more possible scenarios I can imagine: 1.) I don't want the provider's CPE since I have my home gateway-server, which supports A+P and is connected directly to the ISP. This server will have a public IPv4 address configured and if I need, it /can/ then do NAPT44 (instead of the CPE) for the rest of my legacy LAN. 2.) I don't want the provider's CPE since my computers actually support A+P mechanism of the provider. I have IPv6-only network in my LAN and IPv4 addressing is brought directly to hosts via A+P mechanism. So it is like "extending" the access network to my home. This scenario is also shown on page 16, Figure 6 in draft-ymbk-aplusp-10. Nejc _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
