ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [BEHAVE] Last Call: <draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih-06.txt> (Dual Stack Hosts Using "Bump-in-the-Host" (BIH)) to Proposed Standard

2011-09-27 08:10:47
-----Original Message-----
From: teemu(_dot_)savolainen(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com 
[mailto:teemu(_dot_)savolainen(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com]
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 11:14 PM
To: dwing(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com; satoru(_dot_)matsushima(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com; 
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Cc: softwires(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; behave(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: RE: [BEHAVE] Last Call: <draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih-06.txt>
(Dual Stack Hosts Using "Bump-in-the-Host" (BIH)) to Proposed Standard

I believe the objection is against "non-deterministic translation",
rather
than
stateful versus stateless.  By non-deterministic, I mean that the
subscriber's
equipment (e.g., CPE) cannot determine the mapping it will have on
the
Internet.  A+P mechanisms are deterministic (including 4rd, Dual-IVI,
and
draft-ymbk-aplus-p).

A stateful CGN, as commonly deployed, is not deterministic.

I don't understand why that is significant enough factor for IETF to
(not)
recommend some double translation variants. I mean does existing
applications work better if double translation is done in deterministic
manner? 

Yes, it allows the CPE to implement an ALG -- if an application needs
an ALG (e.g., active-mode FTP).

-d

One reasoning against double translation has been that it
breaks
some class of applications. Is it now so that some forms of double
translation do not break applications while some others do?

      Teemu


_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>