2012/6/12, Lee, Yiu <yiu_...@cable.comcast.com>: > Hi Dapeng., > > This is not a specification draft. This is a draft to discuss the > motivations. IMHO, people who are working in this area would be able to > understand this draft.
=> I guess the audience is not only designer of protocol, but also operators who want to evaluate and adopt such technology. Intentional hiding the truth for me is really bad. The focus of it is about the carrier network, CPE > is never the focal point. I think the current statement "States may still > exist in other equipments such as customer premises equipment." is enough. =>Please see my reply in previous mail. "may" is not sufficient. > Adding more text only causes confusion. =>What I do is objectively to elaborate what we are. Why would that cause confusion? Regards, Dapeng > Thanks, > Yiu > > On 6/12/12 6:21 AM, "liu dapeng" <maxpass...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>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 > -- ------ Best Regards, Dapeng Liu _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
