Hi Edward, On 10/21/2015 08:29 AM, Edward Lopez wrote: > I apologize if this has been thrashed out in the past. In looking as > implementing DS-Lite support, it appears that the need to include an > additional tuple of information on the IPv6 B4 address of the CPE is > cumbersome to NAT performance and tunnel capacitance, as many HW accelerated > NAT engines exist without this extra tuple. It would appear that by > splitting the AFTR into two functions, 4in6 encapsulation & NAT(CGN), we can > overcome scaling and performance issues of DS-Lite. > > However, the issue of overlapping endpoint subnets supported internally by > the CPE leads to the issue potentially supporting NAT44 on the CPE, to > support stateless encapsulation of returning IPv4 packets into IPv6 by the > AFTR. Section 4.2 of RFC-6333 states that CPE devices ‘should not’ perform > NAT44, but that’s not the same as a ‘must not’ > > But as you craft this solution out, you begin to realize that you are > re-creating the majority of 4rd, RFC-7600. However, 4rd is currently an > experimental standard. > > My questions: > > - Has anyone implemented or considered implementing DS-Lite with CPEs > performing NAT44?
Have you looked at RFC7596 (Lightweight 4over6)? Its main goal was to move the NAT to the B4 (CPE) from the AFTR. Thanks Suresh _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
