> I believe the objection is against "non-deterministic translation", 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? 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
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
