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

2011-09-28 10:49:07
-----Original Message-----
From: Hui Deng [mailto:denghui02(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 2:52 AM
To: Dan Wing
Cc: teemu(_dot_)savolainen(_at_)nokia(_dot_)com; 
satoru(_dot_)matsushima(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com;
ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org; 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

inline please,


2011/9/27 Dan Wing <dwing(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>


      > -----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).



Are you saying distrbiuted ALG is much better than centralized ALG?

Best is no ALG.  Worse is one ALG.  Even worse is two ALGs.

-d

-Hui



      -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
      >


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




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

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