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

+1

Cheers,
Rajiv

Sent from my Phone

On Jun 12, 2012, at 9:14 AM, "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:

> 
> Hi Yiu,
> 
> 
> +1.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Med 
> 
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : softwires-bounces@ietf.org 
>> [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Lee, Yiu
>> Envoyé : mardi 12 juin 2012 14:46
>> À : softwires@ietf.org
>> 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" <maxpassion@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 2012/6/12, Ole Trøan <otroan@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
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> Softwires@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires