On 01/12/2019 20:57, Ole Troan wrote:
>> No matter how hard you try, at the end of the day LW4o6 is still
>> stateful mechanism.
>
> Just make sure there are no misunderstandings. MAP-E and LW46 both
> have the same NAT placement (at the CPE). A MAP-E implementation can
> implement LW46 by supporting a MAP rule per subscriber. So it’s more
> correct to say that LW46 has per-user configured state, and that
> MAP-E can aggregate this configured state into a few rules covering
> the whole domain. Both are stateless, in contrast to a NAT that has
> state per session.
Ya, you are right. Got confused for a millisecond with dslight ;) Too
many things going on right now. My bad.
As far as I remember - LW4o6 is useful in cases where you don't have one
huge IPv4 block of addresses to assign to the transition mechanism
and/or where you want to dynamically assign additional ports to the CPE
if it runs out of it.
If none of this is a requirement, then MAP-E/T should be the way to go.
Do we have any experiments/deployments of 464XLAT in fixed networks?
CLAT in CPE and NAT64 in the core?
Cheers, Jan
