2012/6/12, Ole Trøan <otr...@employees.org>: >> Ok, then we can make this more clear in our document. >> >> "States still should be maintained in other equipments, e.g. customer >> premises equipment or host, in order to restrict IP address or port >> number >> information into the configured context except that a non-shared IPv4 >> address is >> assigned to a standalone host." > > I think this is just adding confusion. > the NAT44 on the CPE already does this.
=>First off, we are not only talking about NAT44 here, but port translation and non-shared address. Secondly, NAT44 on the CPE is not doing what today NAT44 does. For example, override ID in ICMP with port information. that reminds me to update the proposed text a bit, "States still should be maintained in other equipments, e.g. customer premises equipment or host, in order to restrict L3 or L4 information into the configured context except that a non-shared IPv4 address is assigned to a standalone host." > I suggest we instead talk about no _additional_ state in the network. there > is no need to mention the CPE, apart from stating that no additional state > is required. =>I believe the above is clear for reader and designer. I don't see why we resist on clarifying and helping reader better understanding. Regards, Dapeng Liu > cheers, > Ole > > > -- ------ Best Regards, Dapeng Liu _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
