2012-02-28 15:06, liu dapeng : ... > 2012/2/27, Rémi Després <despres.r...@laposte.net>: ... >> The draft only reflects the wish of an number of operators to have a >> stateless solution standardized, acknowledging that this is in addition to >> the more advanced stateful solutions (it doesn't even include the word >> "superior"). ... > Thanks for the discussion but the fundamental question is: > > If we consider [CPE(stateful) + BR(partially stateless maybe)] as a > stateless solution, > > then, why [CPE(stateless) + xlate(stateful)] is not a stateless solution?
What I see as important is that IPv6-only routing can be deployed ASAP without sacrificing a good residual IPv4 service, including where ISPs prefer per-user stateless operation. The point has already been made that functions are defined in the draft as "stateless" if they don't need (for IPv4 over IPv6) any "per-user" state. A CE can therefore be considered stateless *in the draft* even if it has NAT44 (a function that is purely IPv4, and whose statefulness is per session). Because of that, the draft is self consistent an doesn't need to be modified. I do hope that, with these additional explanations, and in order to avoid waste of energy, you can accept to join a consensus that it is time to close this discussion and accept the draft. Looking forward to further discussions on solutions themselves, Regards, RD _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
