Hi Behcet, Le 2012-02-08 à 09:46, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit :
> Hi Cameron, > 4rd solution IMHO is more suitable for a fixed network. CPE in 4rd is > not appropriate to be hosted in a UE. > > I think your solution 464XLAT's mobile part is way better for your > purposes. There you can put all your IPv4 resources on the PLAT box so > that CLAT box is kept simpler. > > In 4rd, CPEs have A+P and BR is kept "stateless" these are not so > useful for your purposes, I think. Note however that: - 464XLAT doesn't support shared IPv4 addresses (while 4rd does) - 4rd over 6rd can work, and therefore offer both IPv6 and shared-address IPv4 on an RFC1918 network, e.g. on a 3GPP IPv4 PDP (while 464XLAT cannot AFAIK). Regards, RD > > Regards, > > Behcet > > > On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Cameron Byrne <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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 >> > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
