Dapeng, > CPE have to maintain NAT44 state in all the cases. Is that a state or not?
no _additional_ state in CPE. keep state close to end-user (as it is now), no state in SP network. cheers, Ole >> >>> It is obviously contradictory with this definition. We >>> need more discussion regarding the definition of "stateless". >>> >>> regards, >>> Dapeng Liu >>> >>> 2012/2/20, [email protected] <[email protected]>: >>>> Dear chairs, WG members, >>>> >>>> The answers received so far are in favour of initiating a WG LC on this >>>> document. >>>> >>>> As an editor of the document, I would like to progress this document for >>>> the >>>> next IETF meeting. Chairs, could you please issue the WG LC? Thanks. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Med >>>> >>>>> -----Message d'origine----- >>>>> De : [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >>>>> Envoyé : samedi 11 février 2012 09:30 >>>>> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP >>>>> Cc : [email protected] >>>>> Objet : Re: [Softwires] Closing >>>>> draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation >>>>> >>>>> In your previous mail you wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> (1) Either issue a WG LC, or >>>>> >>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Softwires mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> ------ >>> Best Regards, >>> Dapeng Liu >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Softwires mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >> >> > > > -- > > ------ > Best Regards, > Dapeng Liu > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
