Re: I-D Action:draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-pb-statement-req-00.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>]

Teemu,

On 2008-05-16 02:08, teemu.savolainen@nokia.com wrote:
...
> 
> Excluding RFC2766 NAT-PT kind of single box solutions (is there others
> than RFC2766?), all actually implement two (or more) logical boxes - one
> near/on the v6 host and one further away with IPv4 interface (all
> tunneling solutions, and also NATv4v6v4 and MNAT-PT), right?
> 
> The "I2: operational flexibility" says that "It should be possible to
> locate the translation device at an arbitrary point in the network (i.e.
> not at fixed points such as a site exit), so that there is full
> operational flexibility.". I would read that sentence so that if the
> "translation device" is actually two logical functions, then the other
> end can locate inside the v6 host as well (i.e. between the small
> internal v4 world and v6 world), if seen useful from operational
> flexibility point of view. The other end of course is located in some
> other device which has global IPv4 interface. 

If you are still thinking of a mobile device that is acting as an
interworking unit between a local IPv4 network and an IPv6 world,
it seems to me you are loading it up with CPU and memory and battery
power needs that are unreasonable. I agree that we shouldn't restrict
where the various functions can be placed, but it seems desirable to
minimise what is needed in mobile devices.

     Brian