> -----Original Message----- > From: teemu.savolai...@nokia.com [mailto:teemu.savolai...@nokia.com] > Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 11:14 PM > To: dw...@cisco.com; satoru.matsush...@gmail.com; ietf@ietf.org > Cc: softwi...@ietf.org; beh...@ietf.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@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
