Re: [Softwires] dual-stack-lite-06

If 8.4 and Appendix C cause any concern, I agree with Alain to remove both
sections.

On 8/12/10 10:09 AM, "Ralph Droms" <rdroms@cisco.com> wrote:

> I think a lot of the text in section 8.4.1 is a matter of opinion or
> speculation; perhaps it would be better to describe the pros and cons of
> dynamic and fixed port assignment without making a recommendation before we
> have much deployment experience.
> 
> - Ralph
> 
> On Aug 11, 2010, at 6:50 PM 8/11/10, Alain Durand wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On Aug 11, 2010, at 6:00 PM, Ralph Droms wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>>> 2. If the number of assignable IPv4 addresses is for a start multiplied by
>>>> 10, by statically sharing ports of each address among 10 customers, this
>>>> still leaves several thousands of IPv4 ports per customer. (Exactly 6144
>>>> ports per customer if, as appropriate, the first 4K ports, that include
>>>> well-known ports and have special value are excluded).
>>> 
>>> Agreed; one could argue that even sharing an IPv4 address among 5 customers
>>> allows 5x as many customers in the existing IPv4 address assignment, which
>>> should be more than enough to bridge the gap until IPv6 is available.
>> 
>> The later part of this comment is IMHO a matter of opinion...
>> It is very hard to know for sure how much IPv4 translation will be needed in
>> the feature.
> 
> 
> 
>> The major issue with any scheme that allocates a fixed number of ports is
>> what do you do when that number is exhausted?
>> How do you even know this is happening? This may or may bot be an issue if we
>> are talking about 10k ports per customers,
>> but as pressure mounts on the IPv4 space and the address compression ratio
>> need to be increased, you soon end-up with much less ports per customers. And
>> then what?
>> 
>> 
>>>> 3. Where applicable static sharing is much simpler to operate.
>>> 
>>> Agreed.
>> 
>> Logs can indeed be simpler to manage, sure. But this is a trade-off. Other
>> parts of the systems are more complex, see above.
>> 
>> All this being said, the discussion of the advantages or inconvenients of A+B
>> belong  to the A+P mailing list.
>> 
>>    - Alain.
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

Re: [Softwires] dual-stack-lite-06 - Too biased against static port sharing