2012/2/25, Lee, Yiu <[email protected]>: > Hi Dapeng, > > IMHO both sides are right. Whether in CPE or in the SP, there are states. > I guess when people say stateless on this list, they always refer to SP > network (vs. CPE). But we all agree that there would be states in the CPE > for the "stateless" solutions we discuss here. If we can clarify > "stateless" refers to SP network, does this work better for you?
The problem is: SP network can not exclude CPE.. > We can argue that CPE is part of "SP" network. However, states in CPE > exist since introducing NAT. This is well understood and everybody has > lots of experience of it. States in SP are new to many operators and some > of them prefer keeping the states in the CPE due to various reasons we > discuss in the draft. That said, there are always pros and cons, it is up > to the operators to decide what path they would prefer. Yes, I agree that there are always pros and cons but we should try to avoid confusing&misleading the reader before we decide to move forward. Thanks. Regards, Dapeng Liu > > Regards, > Yiu > > > > On 2/24/12 7:21 AM, "liu dapeng" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>Hi Med, >> >>Yes, I am considering CPE. There are two reasons: >> >>1. The definition of "stateless" should not be bind to the provider's >>network. The document should define "stateless" for the Internet not >>only for the operator. >> >>2. Even for CPE itself, in many cases, it should be considered as >>provider's network since operator need to control/configure the CPE >>remotely in that case. >> >>regards, >>Dapeng Liu >> > -- ------ Best Regards, Dapeng Liu _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
