Hi Cameron,
Good question. Yes, MAP is deployable even in that case (though the
mileage may vary). One deployment approach suggested below.
What's really interesting is that MAP-T CE function (with sharing
ratio=1, thereby disabling NAT44 on CE) could get us quite comparable to
the CLAT function, and still allowing to use the PLAT device for
stateful NAT64. This flexibility got be highlighted, IMO.
Cheers,
Rajiv
PS: One of many deployment approaches could be to
- take one public IPv4 address (or prefix) out of the pool
assigned to CGN, and use it in MAP as the starting point
- exclude that IPv4 address (or prefix) from CGN
- share that IPv4 address (or prefix) among 2^n subscribers
using MAP
Needless to say that this would be done on a per PDN GW basis. The above
approach takes quite a simplistic view, suffice to say, and we could
come up with more approaches. I bet that you already thought through
most of this already.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
On
> Behalf Of Cameron Byrne
> Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 10:06 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan
>
> Are the map and 4rd solutions deployable for existing networks that do
not
> have reserves of ipv4 ? My assumption is that these solutions target
existing
> networks that have meaningful growth and they need a v6 solution.
>
> If yes, how? Any pointers within the reams of drafts I should look
for?
>
> In my brief and simple skimming, it appears to me that setting up one
of these
> solutions would require me to collapse my existing network to harvest
back the
> addresses so that they may be redeployed in map.
>
> What would the deployment process be for an address exhausted network
of 10
> million subs with 10% annual growth be?
>
>
>
> Cb
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
