On 11/7/11 10:24 PM, "Qiong" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Reinaldo,
>
> I'm not sure whether I understand SD-NAT correctly. I mean, in "lightweight
> 4over6", we will only do single-NAT in the initiator, and there is no
> address/port translation in the concentrator-side. If SD-NAT needs to do
> address/or port translation on both CPE and AFTR, there will be double ALG
> issues here.
Thanks for the comment. Can you clarify what are the 'double' ALG issues? In
my experience if an ALG works through one NAT, it will work through any NATs
as long as the ALG is implemented (and vice versa).
> But as you mentioned in previous mail, in case double translation
> is optional, double ALG would also be optional.
>
> Anyway, it is an interesting stateless scheme and I would like to discuss with
> you in Taipei :)
Sure.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Qiong
>
> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 8:41 AM, Reinaldo Penno
> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> Can you clarify more ALG issues? It seems to me that whatever ALG issues you
> have it will happen irrespective.
>
>
> On 11/4/11 1:00 AM, "Qiong" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
> wrote:
>
>> A quick comment: it seems SD-NAT has introduced double address translation
>> making use of regular DHCP/Radius. It is very interesting, however, it would
>> introduce more ALG issues than single NAT. It is more like a hub&spoke
>> stateless solution, e.g. stateless 4over6, etc. I'm not sure how this kind of
>> stateless mechanism compared to 4rd, dIVI, etc. And I would prefer a unified
>> address+port allocation algorithm in softwire WG.
>
>
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
