Qiong, > If public 4over6 is one extreme case of MAP, in which one subscriber > represents one MAP domain, then should we also say that DS-Lite is another > extreme case of MAP, where one application (session) represents one MAP > domain ?
a DS-lite AFTR could be represented by the combination of a MAP BR with per subscriber rules combined with a NAT44. there is a reason we started out calling MAP for "Stateless DS-lite". > I think we should still keep the initial feature of these solutions. all the proposed solutions, including DS-lite shares a large set of commonalities. where the differences are more operational considerations and deployment choices than technical differences. do we need a separate protocol specification for each deployment choice? cheers, Ole _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
