Subject: [BEHAVE] Comments on draft-bcx-address-fmt-extension-00

From: Dave Thaler <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 23:31:02 +0000

>  To face the IPv4 public address
>   exhaustion, it is desirable to assign fractional IPv4 addresses to
>   IPv6 nodes which can share a single IPv4 address with each node
>   managing a different range of ports.

I think many people strongly disagree with the above statement
about it being desirable to assign a fractional IPv4 address to a node.
And I think most people would agree that the above statement is
contentious.

I would encourage the authors to think about whether this draft 
would be applicable in the non-contentious PCP-style scenario 
where no fractional IPv4 address is assigned to a node, but instead
where applications can use PCP to ask for the externally visible 
IPv4 address/port they can then advertise in application-specific 
mechanisms.

I suspect it might be applicable, to minimize port logging
requirements at the translator as discussed in several other 
documents about large-scale NAT port management/logging.

-Dave