Re: [v4v6interim] Comparison document

3.1.2 describes the two proposals Dual-stack lite and SNAT as more or less
the same. Even if there is discussion about merging them I still think it
would be worth pointing out in the document that there is a big difference
between the two proposals. 
DS-lite doesn't require a tunnel to be set up in order to function as it
keeps the IPv6 source address as part of the NAT state, much like a NAT-PT.
In the case of SNAT there has to exist a tunnel per user before traffic is
sent as tunnelling and NAT are more or less separate. 

-Mikael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: v4v6interim-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v4v6interim-
> bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dan Wing
> Sent: September 16, 2008 11:45
> To: v4v6interim@ietf.org
> Subject: [v4v6interim] Comparison document
> 
> We just submitted "A Comparison of Proposals to Replace NAT-PT", which
> attempts to summarize and compare APB-Revised, Dual-Stack Lite, NAT444,
> IVI,
> NAT6, NAT64, NAT-PT, and sNAT-PT.
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wing-nat-pt-replacement-
> comparison-0
> 0.txt
> 
> -d
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v4v6interim mailing list
> v4v6interim@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim

_______________________________________________
v4v6interim mailing list
v4v6interim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim