I am not fond of the proposed change. After all, most of the other documents refer to stateful without taking a "side" (e.g. carrier-side), and so this document should state stateless in the same regard.
Of course, where it makes sense to clarify, it must be clarified that stateless is in the carrier-side, with or without stateful NAT44 in the customer-side. We must not make the assumption that stateless and stateful go together, though they will likely. Cheers, Rajiv > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of liu dapeng > Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2012 11:47 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; Yong Cui > Subject: Re: [Softwires] WG last call ondraft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6- > motivation-01 > > Hi Med: > > 2012/6/8, [email protected] > <[email protected]>: > > Dear Dapeng, > > > > Please see inline. > > > > Cheers, > > > >>-----Message d'origine----- > >>De : liu dapeng [mailto:[email protected]] Envoyé : vendredi 8 juin > >>2012 13:49 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP Cc : Yong Cui; > >>[email protected] 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 > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
