Re: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan

Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com> Tue, 07 February 2012 18:27 UTC

Return-Path: <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EAE721F886C for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 10:27:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.451
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.451 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.148, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LBhGKveJit6l for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 10:27:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (szxga04-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 310B421F8862 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 10:27:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LZ100GOBCLZRD@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for softwires@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 02:27:35 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LZ1006PICLZX6@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for softwires@ietf.org; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 02:27:35 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxeml211-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AGX57596; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 02:27:34 +0800
Received: from SZXEML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.60) by szxeml211-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.182) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 02:26:55 +0800
Received: from SZXEML526-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.225]) by szxeml405-hub.china.huawei.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 02:27:56 +0800
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:27:14 +0000
From: Tina TSOU <Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com>
In-reply-to: <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C07508C4E@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com>
To: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
Message-id: <C7C3BA22-EDEF-4150-8A70-36400EF82A4D@huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-language: en-US
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN
Thread-topic: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan
Thread-index: AQHM5aofFcNYKqiCf0eXBbmiR7jrZ5YxKQOAgACX49w=
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
References: <CAD6AjGTfQ4akndGG3C9k7SZU=4BpuA4qrorg1FeV5u8wEJRdaA@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGS7TBhUVJjwjqMibXJRo1Y=F4UKcDmYXfh-9OUDe=Me0w@mail.gmail.com> <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C07508C4E@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com>
Cc: "softwires@ietf.org" <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:27:49 -0000

Some implementer wrote to me as below. I would like to get some feedback from the WG list before my reply. Thank u.

Hi Tina,
Please clear this doubt of mine:
In the initial stage of IPv6 Migration, there will be vast IPv4 lands connected by IPv6 n/w's, where diff operators must have chosen different transition technology for 6over4 like 6to4,6rd etc. etc.
Now if they have to deploy MAP over this for 4over6 traversal, is MAP always independent of whether 6to4 was used or 6rd used.....because the prefix delegation is different in each.

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 7, 2012, at 9:24 AM, "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com> wrote:

> Hi Cameron,
> 
> Good question. Yes, MAP is deployable even in that case (though the
> mileage may vary). One deployment approach suggested below.
> 
> What's really interesting is that MAP-T CE function (with sharing
> ratio=1, thereby disabling NAT44 on CE) could get us quite comparable to
> the CLAT function, and still allowing to use the PLAT device for
> stateful NAT64. This flexibility got be highlighted, IMO.
> 
> Cheers,
> Rajiv
> 
> PS: One of many deployment approaches could be to 
>    - take one public IPv4 address (or prefix) out of the pool 
>    assigned to CGN, and use it in MAP as the starting point
>    - exclude that IPv4 address (or prefix) from CGN
>    - share that IPv4 address (or prefix) among 2^n subscribers
>    using MAP
> 
> Needless to say that this would be done on a per PDN GW basis. The above
> approach takes quite a simplistic view, suffice to say, and we could
> come up with more approaches. I bet that you already thought through
> most of this already.
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: softwires-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org]
> On
>> Behalf Of Cameron Byrne
>> Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 10:06 AM
>> To: softwires@ietf.org
>> Subject: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan
>> 
>> Are the map and 4rd solutions deployable for existing networks that do
> not
>> have reserves  of ipv4 ?  My assumption is that these solutions target
> existing
>> networks that have meaningful growth and they need a v6 solution.
>> 
>> If yes, how? Any pointers within the reams of drafts I should look
> for?
>> 
>> In my brief and simple skimming, it appears to me that setting up one
> of these
>> solutions would require me to collapse my existing network to harvest
> back the
>> addresses so that they may be redeployed in map.
>> 
>> What would the deployment process be for an address exhausted network
> of 10
>> million subs with 10% annual growth be?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Cb
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> Softwires@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires