IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Softwires] draft-murakami-softwire-4v6-translation

Nejc Škoberne <nejc@skoberne.net> Thu, 18 August 2011 14:13 UTC

Return-Path: <nejc@skoberne.net>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72E5321F8B42 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 07:13:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.164
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.164 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.135, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PDLQ-oV9n62h for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 07:13:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tnode.com (common.tnode.com [91.185.203.243]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D44F821F8AC3 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 07:13:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.tnode.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0879227876A; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 16:14:22 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mail.tnode.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.tnode.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3AfGU-IyWXGB; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 16:14:22 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [158.125.103.63] (co-staff-103-063.lut.ac.uk [158.125.103.63]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nejc@skoberne.net) by mail.tnode.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 584012278769; Thu, 18 Aug 2011 16:14:22 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4E4D1E3D.9090509@skoberne.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 15:14:21 +0100
From: Nejc Škoberne <nejc@skoberne.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110812 Thunderbird/6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com>
References: <4E4B96CB.2020004@skoberne.net> <CAM+vMETwH_4c2kvm4uUUAOGGmYA0nKMMm+aZaPg8JBS9jEknmQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E4BC8E9.4010703@skoberne.net> <1313620188.92723.YahooMailNeo@web111408.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4E4C4251.8020407@skoberne.net> <CAM+vMESA=rq4dMHcRH4nqzUV2ZqLt1oAJ85p_T=1jnM-0UZqKA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAM+vMESA=rq4dMHcRH4nqzUV2ZqLt1oAJ85p_T=1jnM-0UZqKA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "softwires@ietf.org" <softwires@ietf.org>, Behcet Sarikaya <behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] draft-murakami-softwire-4v6-translation
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:13:30 -0000

Dear Behcet,

> A+P is the same case if I understand correctly. NAT44 is one of three
> fundamental functions in A+P architecture. Otherwise, it can’t connect
> to legacy end-hosts.

It _is_ fundamental, however it is not mandatory in all scenarios. Please
see draft-ymbk-aplusp-10 (which defines A+P architecture and has been
approved RFC status in June), page 16, Figure 6. It clearly shows two
different customers. Customer2 must use NAT44, naturally, since his hosts
don't support the specific A+P mechanism themselves. Customer1, however,
has his hosts connected directly into the A+P network. This is because
his hosts _have_ native A+P support for the specific mechanism.

And I think that "draft-murakami-softwire-4v6-translation" should also
support these kind of scenarios (as all other A+P mechanism drafts do).

Thanks,
Nejc

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email