+1 Cheers, Rajiv
Sent from my Phone On Jun 12, 2012, at 9:14 AM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Yiu, > > > +1. > > > Cheers, > Med > >> -----Message d'origine----- >> De : [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] De la part de Lee, Yiu >> Envoyé : mardi 12 juin 2012 14:46 >> À : [email protected] >> Objet : Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: >> draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-02.txt >> >> 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. 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. >> Adding more text only causes confusion. >> >> Thanks, >> Yiu >> >> On 6/12/12 6:21 AM, "liu dapeng" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 2012/6/12, Ole Trøan <[email protected]>: >>>>> 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 >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >> > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
