Re: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan

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