Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-02.txt

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Yiu,


+1.


Cheers,
Med 

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : [e-mail] 
>[mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Lee, Yiu
>Envoyé : mardi 12 juin 2012 14:46
>À : [e-mail]
>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" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>2012/6/12, Ole Trøan <[e-mail]>:
>>>> 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
>>[e-mail]
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>