Hi Jacni,
Le 3 nov. 2011 à 05:13, Jacni Qin a écrit : ... >> Saying if you are not happy with port sharing, we give you a full address is >> relatively straightforward and can be translated into marketing terms. >> Anything in between is more questionable. This is a question that should be >> taken back to the working group: how far do we want to go on that route. > Indeed. +1 > In addition, > Although according to the current algorithm, both the "prefix" case and the > "exclusive address" case can be inherently supported, I still think, at least > to cover the prefix case is debatable, given the so called "residual > deployment of IPv4", which is the context of the solution design. > > Furthermore, there is already an approach adopted by the WG for public IPv4 > address case, > if the MAP just covers "shared address with one single sharing ratio for one > domain", > the design will be greatly simplified? Requiring ISPs to maintain IPv4 routing in their networks, just to serve the few users that need to keep IPv4 prefixes, seems to me a step backward. Besides, I have serious doubts about "greatly simplified". In my understanding, the recent unifying design of 4rd-U is, among per-customer-stateless v4/v6 solutions, one that permits a UNIQUE AND SIMPLE standard (possible direct CE-CE routes, transparency to v4 fragmentation, compatibility with v6 O&M-tools). All clarification questions are of course welcome. Cheers, RD _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
