hi Remi,
On 11/3/2011 4:22 PM, Rémi Després wrote:
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".
I mean for the design of the address/port mapping algorithm, not the
transport mechanism.
Cheers,
Jacni
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
