Re: [Softwires] Port mapping - Don't change it at the last minute !

[Jacni Qin <[e-mail]>]

hi Remi,

On 11/3/2011 4:22 PM, Rémi Després wrote:
> Hi Jacni,
>
>
> Le 3 nov. 2011 à 05:13, Jacni Qin a écrit :
> ...
>>> Saying if you are not happy with port sharing, we give you a full address is relatively straightforward and can be translated into marketing terms. Anything in between is more questionable. This is a question that should be taken back to the working group: how far do we want to go on that route.
>> Indeed.
> +1
>
>
>> In addition,
>> Although according to the current algorithm, both the "prefix" case and the "exclusive address" case can be inherently supported, I still think, at least to cover the prefix case is debatable, given the so called "residual deployment of IPv4", which is the context of the solution design.
>>
>> Furthermore, there is already an approach adopted by the WG for public IPv4 address case,
>> if the MAP just covers "shared address with one single sharing ratio for one domain",
>> the design will be greatly simplified?
> Requiring ISPs to maintain IPv4 routing in their networks, just to serve the few users that need to keep IPv4 prefixes, seems to me a step backward.
>
> Besides, I have serious doubts about "greatly simplified".
I mean for the design of the address/port mapping algorithm, not the 
transport mechanism.


Cheers,
Jacni
> In my understanding, the recent unifying design of 4rd-U is, among per-customer-stateless v4/v6 solutions, one that permits a UNIQUE AND SIMPLE standard (possible direct CE-CE routes, transparency to v4 fragmentation, compatibility with v6 O&M-tools).
> All clarification questions are of course welcome.
>
> Cheers,
> RD
>
>
>
>