Subject: [Softwires] Question on draft-arkko-dual-stack-extra-lite-05

From: Reinaldo Penno <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 14:23:27 -0500

Hello Authors,

Hopefully this is the right list for questions on this draft. Maybe BEHAVE?

In general, is it possible to comments how the requirements of RFC4787,
RFC5382 can be met with this kind of proposal? For example, do we just
re-read RFC4787 substituting 'X' by 'interface' or there is more to it?

Was this analysis done? Also in the context where the source IP (and port?)
do not need to be stored as below?

"   For deployments where exactly one user device is connected with a
   separate tunnel interface and all tunnels use the same IPv4 address
   for the user devices, it is redundant to store this address in the
   mapping in addition to the internal interface identifier.  When the
   internal interface identifier is shorter than a 32-bit IPv4 address,
   this may decrease the storage requirements of a mapping entry by a
   small measure, which may aid NAT scalability.  For other deployments,
   it is likely necessary to store both the user device IPv4 address and
   the internal interface identifier, which slightly increases the size
   of the mapping entry.
"

Thanks,

Reinaldo