Hello Med, Yes, we are almost converged on this final update.
As you said here, there still need port translation in the host, that still state in the host. we need clarify that in this document for other readers. Best Regards, Dapeng Liu 2012/6/11, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>: > 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 >> -- ------ Best Regards, Dapeng Liu _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
