Hi Dapeng, A state maintained in the endpoint does not make the solution stateful, see this excerpt from RFC1958:
This principle has important consequences if we require applications to survive partial network failures. An end-to-end protocol design should not rely on the maintenance of state (i.e. information about the state of the end-to-end communication) inside the network. Such state should be maintained only in the endpoints, in such a way that the state can only be destroyed when the endpoint itself breaks (known as fate-sharing). I didn't considered your last proposed changes for the reason mentioned above. Thank you for your help. Cheers, Med >-----Message d'origine----- >De : liu dapeng [mailto:[email protected]] >Envoyé : lundi 11 juin 2012 05:47 >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 > >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
