[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Comments on draft-koodli-ipv6-in-mobile-networks-02.txt
- To: Rajeev Koodli <rkoodli@cisco.com>
- Subject: Comments on draft-koodli-ipv6-in-mobile-networks-02.txt
- From: Behcet Sarikaya <behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:14:24 -0700 (PDT)
- Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=4DGz6CbzWTfCIXPxsMD1RT2VtLE3QZuhB5W98Paw5lg0ujQCZjcWyGg+UZ1elETJjL+vBtJ2p6C4gERNoZ2gjDnz8i37wMvGN24rLR1j+JnFasQSBFuGC4gPX/Mcw36l006kRKVEtpdntLsd611ikFwmzASnbDWNUysCGSW0YAc=;
- Reply-to: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya@ieee.org>
Hi Rajeev,
My comments on
Section 3.2 NAT Placement in the mobile networks
This section nicely narrates the story of GI-DS-Lite as the centralized NAT versus DS-Lite as the distributed DS-Lite. It reads nicely but I found in it too much emphasis on billing and accounting aspects while it lacks emphasis on other aspects (more meaty? aspects at least as much as I am interested).
For example, one very important feature of DS-Lite is to have an IPv6-only network thus savings on IPv4 addresses. This is not mentioned.
Next, why currently mobile operators do not have much interest on DS-Lite is not mentioned.
On the centralized NAT or GI-DS-Lite, firstly, the identification of GI-DS-Lite as the centralized NAT approach is very useful because it was not clear reading the GI-DS-Lite draft.
However, one important aspect of GI-DS-Lite is that it no longer requires an IPv6-only network and therefore no IPv4 address savings which is not mentioned in the draft.
Regards,
Behcet