Le 2012-06-11 à 09:32, liu dapeng a écrit : > 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.
Note that these states are "per-connection", not "per customer". Even a host without NAT has to maintain per-connection states for its sockets. In this respect, the draft is I think acceptable, and hopefully can now proceed quickly. Regards, RD > 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 _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
