Subject: Re: [3gv6] was draft report - now Ipv6 transition ... IMS

From: "Hui Deng" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:05:36 +0800

Raj, 

Excuse me for late reply, Inline.
> Hui,
> On 11/19/09 12:53 AM, "Hui Deng" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > Hi, Sri,
> >
> > Just a short cut in here.
> > DS-Lite =  Encapsulation +NAT44.
> > PNAT (464) = Header change +NAT44,
> > Principally, there is no big difference, but PNAT supports more other
> > scenarios at the same time.
> 
> The comparison sounds overly simplistic. PNAT (464) requires a shim in the
> host and state. And the scenarios themselves need to be really reviewed in
> terms of whether they can only be solved by one approach. I am yet to see
a
> scenario that can only be solved by one PNAT and not by DS-Lite. Maybe the
> DS-Lite approach requires you to go through a GW and a NAT in order to
> communicate with another host on the same network. But that in itself is
not
> an issue (IMO).
Are u saying 4-6 or 4-4?
even 4-4, they have overlapped address issue?

-Hui
> Cheers,
> -Raj
> > -Hui