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

[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.

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.

cheers,
Ole