Re-, I was answering to your last proposed wording to include the port translation in the host. Except that change, all your proposed changes are included in my local copy:
* The title has been updated as your requested * The introduction has been updated. Cheers, Med >-----Message d'origine----- >De : liu dapeng [mailto:maxpass...@gmail.com] >Envoyé : lundi 11 juin 2012 09:11 >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 > >Hi Med, > >"end to end argument" is different from" stateful/stateless" >principally, >"end to end argument" recommend state in the end point(host), >but it doesn't say >it is stateless, it is still stateful. > >Based on this, I still believe that we need update the current >document with the last comment. > >Regards, >Dapeng Liu >2012/6/11, liu dapeng <maxpass...@gmail.com>: >> 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 >> > > >-- > >------ >Best Regards, >Dapeng Liu > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
