Remark, Confusion of current 'draft-ietf-softwire-map-00' version of MAP about 1:1 is that independence between the ipv6 and ipv4 addressing could be represented as bellow:
1). ea-len equal to zero within a BMR/FMR for MAP-CE provisioning 2). only DMR provisioning for MAP-CE So in the 1), it doesn't mean NAT44 disabled on MAP CE. In the 2), it does require MAP CE to disable NAT44 for compatibility of MAP-CE(-E) be as DS-Lite B4, and MAP-CE(-T) to be compatible with stateless NAT64. cheers, --satoru On 2012/06/28, at 10:53, Maoke wrote: > Question #8.4: if there is no IPv4 address nor IPv4 stack, where do we need > to *disable* the NAT44? i agree with you that "NAT44 is disabled" here is > obvious but i see it is too obvious to cost a "MUST" in the specification. > "MUST disable" means WE, the HUMAN, MUST make an action according to the > specification. question clarified? please confirm that the editor/author of > this text refers the same thing as you interpreted. > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
