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

[Nejc Škoberne <[e-mail]>]

>> It will not, because I don't have a legacy SOHO LAN. If I have legacy
>> SOHO LAN, I can use (optional) NAT44.
> 
> Exactly, resulting in NAT444 . But if I'm forced to use NAT444
> via a 4 in 6 tunnel anyway, A+P is pointless.

I don't think you understood what I was saying. There is no need for NAT444. 

Let me explain again. The provider has an A+P solution in place. They will,
by default, provide me with their CPE, which supports A+P and also does
NAPT44 for my legacy SOHO LAN. In this case, I just plug my computers and
everything will work like today, just with not-so-many ports.

However, there are at least two more possible scenarios I can imagine:

1.) I don't want the provider's CPE since I have my home gateway-server, 
which supports A+P and is connected directly to the ISP. This server will 
have a public IPv4 address configured and if I need, it /can/ then do 
NAPT44 (instead of the CPE) for the rest of my legacy LAN.

2.) I don't want the provider's CPE since my computers actually support
A+P mechanism of the provider. I have IPv6-only network in my LAN and
IPv4 addressing is brought directly to hosts via A+P mechanism. So it
is like "extending" the access network to my home. This scenario is also
shown on page 16, Figure 6 in draft-ymbk-aplusp-10.

Nejc