Hi Med: 2012/6/8, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>: > Dear Dapeng, > > Please see inline. > > Cheers, > >>-----Message d'origine----- >>De : liu dapeng [mailto:maxpass...@gmail.com] >>Envoyé : vendredi 8 juin 2012 13:49 >>À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP >>Cc : Yong Cui; softwires@ietf.org >>Objet : Re: [Softwires] WG last call on >>draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-01 >> >>> >>> Med: We have already this text in the introduction: >>> >>> Current standardization effort that is meant to address this IPv4 >>> service continuity issue focuses mainly on stateful >>mechanisms that >>> assume the sharing of any global IPv4 address that is left between >>> several customers, based upon the deployment of NAT >>(Network Address >>> Translation) capabilities in the network. Because of >>some caveats of >>> such stateful approaches the Service Provider community >>feels that a >>> companion effort is required to specify stateless IPv4 over IPv6 >>> approaches. This document provides elaboration on such need. >>> >>> Isn't this text sufficient enough? If not, it would helpful >>to propose a >>> sentence you want to be added to the introduction. >> >>How about adding the following sentences: >> >>------- >>In many networks today, NAT44 functions is equipped on >>customer-edge device. >>It may impact IPv4 over IPv6 solution to be a stateful solution from >>end-to-end perspectives. The stateless solution also may subject to >>NAT44 state. >>In this document, we mainly refer this stateless paradigm to >>large-scale address Sharing, i.e. carrier-side stateless IPv4 over >>IPv6, which resolve the concern of "stateless" terminology. This >>document provides elaboration on such need. >>------- >> > > Med: Thanks for the proposal. I shortened your proposal and updated the text > to: > > > Current standardization effort that is meant to address this IPv4 > service continuity issue focuses mainly on stateful mechanisms that > assume the sharing of any global IPv4 address that is left between > several customers, based upon the deployment of NAT (Network Address > Translation) capabilities in the network. Because of some caveats of > such stateful approaches the Service Provider community feels that a > companion effort is required to specify stateless IPv4 over IPv6 > approaches. Note stateless IPv4 over IPv6 solutions may be enabled > in conjunction with a port-restricted NAT44 function located in the > customer premises. > > This document provides elaboration on the need for carrier-side > stateless IPv4 over IPv6 solution. > > > Are you OK with this new text?
[Dapeng]==> I make a minor change of the last two sentences: --------- Because of some caveats of such stateful approaches the Service Provider community feels that a companion effort is required to specify carrier-side stateless IPv4 over IPv6 approaches. Note carrier-side stateless IPv4 over IPv6 solutions may be enabled in conjunction with a port-restricted NAT44 function located in the customer premises or port translation in the host and that is still stateful in the whole. --------- Besides, how about changing all the terminology "stateless" to "carrier-side stateless" in the document? Thanks, Best Regards, Dapeng Liu > > -- ------ Best Regards, Dapeng Liu _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
