Hi Reinaldo, inlines :) -------------- Peng Wu
>> The first and the major one is that, if we just take ds-lite and have static >> port set allocation in the concentrator, the concentrator still has to keep >> the per-session NAT table and perform the translation, while in lightweight >> 4over6, NAT happens on CPE and the concentrator just perform >> encapsulation/decapsulation, with a per-subscriber mapping table. > >Per-session NAT is not needed if: > >- the B4 performs NAT or >- Each host has a unique IP and a known port space. > >Our implementation performs NAT without any per session state. Could you go a little further into this? I'm actually confused how you do NAT without (source IP, source port, dst IP, dst port) mapping table > >> >> The second one is that in lightweight 4over6, with one-time DHCP/PCP, >> the subscriber learns its public IPv4 address. This brings convenience and >> eases the ALG problem to a certain extent. > >I think ALG is an application issue and can only be fully solved when all >applications make use of PCP. Well, my point is, if the whole problem is just a local 44NAT(as is in leightweight 4over6), then we already have uPnP, and end host don't need PCP to negotiate with the AFTR which is probably a remote, big network device. > >> In ds-lite with static concentrator >> port allocation, the subscriber still doesn't know its public IPv4 >> address/port >> without per-session PCP process. > >Yes, that is a good point. We devised an extension to PCP to return the >public IP and port range. Therefore a single message would be needed. Similar idea. But I still need your elaboration on the principle of this none-session-state NAT thing to get the whole picture. > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
