On Nov 4, 2011, at 2:21 AM, Henderickx, Wim (Wim) wrote: > Reinaldo, > > What happens if a customer wants to get more ports than the CPE owns?
Similar to the other stateless proposals such a 4rd or divi, there is no provision to dynamically extend that range allocated by the ISP. The consensus that was expressed a number of time in the wg is that if you need this flexibility, a stateless solution is the wrong approach, you'd be be better of with a stateful solution. > How would PCP operate with this model? This is an interesting question... This should make the life of the PCP server rather easy, as there will be no state to keep there too. Alain. > > Cheers, > Wim > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Reinaldo Penno > Sent: vrijdag 4 november 2011 1:33 > To: Poscic, Kristian (Kristian); [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Softwires] [BEHAVE] Stateless Deterministic NAPT/DS-Lite > > Hello Kristian, > > comments inline. > > > On 11/3/11 4:38 PM, "Poscic, Kristian (Kristian)" > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Just to make sure I understand this. >> >> Deterministic (statefull) NAT is deterministically translating inside IP to >> outside IP + port range (take NAT44 case). > > Yes. > >> >> Deterministic stateLESS NAT is deterministically translating inside IP + >> inside_src_port to outside IP + outside_src_port. >> No states are required since the incoming traffic in the downstream direction >> (outside IP +port) can be deterministically translated to inside IP+port. >> Any incoming traffic from outside will be mapped to something (predictable) >> on >> the inside even though there may be no traffic initiated from the inside. > > Correct, no need for previous outbound packet. Subscriber gets port > forwarding naturally as a consequence. > >> >> CPE still needs statefull NAT. >> >> Is this correct? > > Yes. > >> Thanks, >> Kris >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of >> Reinaldo Penno >> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 4:12 PM >> To: [email protected]; [email protected] >> Subject: [BEHAVE] Stateless Deterministic NAPT/DS-Lite >> >> Hello, >> >> we submitted a new draft detailing our implementation of >> Stateless-Deterministic NAPT44 and DS-Lite. (SD-NAT) >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-penno-softwire-sdnat-01 >> >> This is a based on our experience with port bucket/chunk allocation and >> deterministic NAPT44. In the draft we provide a comparison with other >> stateless/stateful methods floating around. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Reinaldo >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Behave mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > _______________________________________________ > Behave mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
