Hi Med and Dapeng, In order to close the gap, I suggest a slight modification:
"Current standardization effort that is meant to address this IPv4 service continuity issue focuses mainly on stateful mechanisms that sharing of global IPv4 addresses between Customers is 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 that the stateless solution elaborated in this document focuses on the carrier-side stateless IPv4 over IPv6 solution. States may still exist in other equipments such as customer-premises equipment." Thanks, Yiu On 6/8/12 8:12 AM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: >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.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
