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

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Ahah, you seem to assume that A+P will solve the ISP's shortage
of IPv4 addresses. That may be true for a year or three, but
after that they will discover that they have to CGN their A+P
customers, and then you have NAT444 after all, IMHO.

Regards
   Brian

On 2011-08-20 11:41, Nejc Škoberne wrote:
>>> 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
> 
> 
>