Dear Mark, >>>>> Because of what RFC6333 says, suggesting NOW that solutions that >>>>> don't need NATs are variants of DS-lite is a sure way to confuse >>>>> people. >>> >>> Then we're already confused: >>> >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-softwire-cgn-bypass-03 >> >> Could you explain more which confusion you are referring to? > > Nejc suggested that DS-Lite without NATs (which I assumed meant without > a CGN NAT, aka AFTR) would be confusing at this stage. > > The title of the referenced document is "Procedure to bypass DS-Lite AFTR"
For the record, it was Remi who suggested that, I just +1-ed it. I don't think that the referenced draft really causes confusion, since it clearly states what is the "nominal behavior" of DS-Lite: using NAT44 in the AFTR. That said, I would be happy too if we could just make two big groups of all these mechanisms, like "stateful" and "stateless" DS-Lite. However, I think that is easier said than done. What about stateful A+P solutions like draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite-01? Is this then stateful or stateless DS-Lite? Compared to 4rd or dIVI, this one has customer-state in the core and if we consider static port allocation in CGN with DS-Lite, we end up with RFC6333 and draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite-01 very similar amount of state for both mechanisms. Just the location of the NAPT44 is different. Nejc _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
