Ahah, you seem to assume that A+P will solve the ISP's shortage of IPv4 addresses. That may be true for a year or three, but after that they will discover that they have to CGN their A+P customers, and then you have NAT444 after all, IMHO.
Regards Brian On 2011-08-20 11:41, Nejc Škoberne wrote: >>> 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
