2011/9/27 Dan Wing <dwing@xxxxxxxxx>
Are you saying distrbiuted ALG is much better than centralized ALG?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: teemu.savolainen@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:teemu.savolainen@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 11:14 PM
> To: dwing@xxxxxxxxx; satoru.matsushima@xxxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx
> Cc: softwires@xxxxxxxx; behave@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [BEHAVE] Last Call: <draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih-06.txt>
> (Dual Stack Hosts Using "Bump-in-the-Host" (BIH)) to Proposed Standard
>> > I believe the objection is against "non-deterministic translation",Yes, it allows the CPE to implement an ALG -- if an application needs
> rather
> than
> > stateful versus stateless. By non-deterministic, I mean that the
> subscriber's
> > equipment (e.g., CPE) cannot determine the mapping it will have on
> the
> > Internet. A+P mechanisms are deterministic (including 4rd, Dual-IVI,
> and
> > draft-ymbk-aplus-p).
> >
> > A stateful CGN, as commonly deployed, is not deterministic.
>
> I don't understand why that is significant enough factor for IETF to
> (not)
> recommend some double translation variants. I mean does existing
> applications work better if double translation is done in deterministic
> manner?
an ALG (e.g., active-mode FTP).
Are you saying distrbiuted ALG is much better than centralized ALG?
-Hui
-d
> One reasoning against double translation has been that it
> breaks
> some class of applications. Is it now so that some forms of double
> translation do not break applications while some others do?
>
> Teemu
>_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
Behave@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf