Re: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft

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

On 2009-03-21 04:36, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
> Teemu,
> 
> Thanks for the review.  Please see inline below between <hs> and </hs>.
...

> 
> - You mention DNS64 in the document (8.6), do you envision CPE router
> could implement NAT64 as wall? I think NAT64 could be left out or just
> mentioned shortly - without going into details (so that completing this
> work would not pend on NAT64 work's progress), but how do you see?
> 
> <hs>
> We have deliberately stayed away from NAT64 so far.  However, if a CGN
> document says the CGN cannot support NA64 and the CPE Rtr must do so, we
> are open to adding NAT64 to the CPE Rtr.
> </hs>

I'd be very surprised to see a CGN document making such a statement.
The case you are suggesting is, I think, where the CPE has no path
to a NAT64 (either a NAT64 provided by the subscriber's ISP, built
into a CGN or not, or some NAT64 elsewehere). The scenario discussion
in BEHAVE may clarify this, but for now we can say nothing IMHO.

    Brian