Dear Cameron, Thanks for your effort.
> Easy math version assuming the entire internet moves to this model of > stateless address sharing: > > 50 Billion Internet nodes [1] As I said, I don't think we should consider "Internet of things" in this aspect. Quoting the paper: "As an example of connected devices, Vestberg was joined on stage by Peter Håkansson, research engineer, who showed real life mobile health applications. Håkansson showed how heart monitoring can be done remotely over the mobile networks and explained the benefits for both patients and society." For these new applications, I don't see why they couldn't be deployed natively over IPv6. So I think this number is way, way too big. > As stated, some providers may find a benefit here... I believe that is > clear. My understanding is that in North America many of the > incumbent land line providers have fairly static subscriber bases, not > a lot of growth in users demanding IPv4. In my world (mobile), AFAIK > approximately half of the service providers globally already do NAT44 > / LSN / CGN. Well, as I understand, these (static port allocation) solutions are predominantly envisioned for resident users and SoHo environments. At least for mobile environments, I've heard that it is 3GPP's decision to avoid all host-based transition solutions except dual-stack. > Areas of the internet that are experiencing or anticipate rapid growth > (mobile, cloud, new ventures) in address consumption will likely not > extend their existing addresses far with a stateless solution. Well, that's why we have dynamic port allocation solutions ready for them. ==== Let me put it again, so it is clear what I wanted to say initially: I think that draft-murakami-softwire-4v6-translation SHOULD _allow_ for NAT-less implementations of the mechanism as well. As all other static port allocation mechanism drafts do. That's all. Thanks, Nejc _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
