Re: [Softwires] Unified Softwire CPE: draft-bfmk-softwire-unified-cpe

Qiong <bingxuere@gmail.com> Sat, 01 December 2012 02:39 UTC

Return-Path: <bingxuere@gmail.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 B910B21F86A8 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 18:39:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I8rJcRIccnOs for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 18:39:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ia0-f178.google.com (mail-ia0-f178.google.com [209.85.210.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC96221F8566 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 18:39:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ia0-f178.google.com with SMTP id k25so1060954iah.23 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 18:39:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=OfEurAaDpmOwVrSFeEeWYsuleRtTwxNHMRzkScsnnlo=; b=cD1V6TOd8TX/+QNXtsqrHREAG54KI0vRr0C9xs/qjSI/iivv67oeBUpcnoH5ySQZ5/ Vxae9GLaTJT7EKQCKoC8disG+iZUv0qCDR2Nv8gwiYqwq2LX3FmS7+C+ac5CaTNNYnou 29vcBM0UjEjXd0xzxjrL16vCtW6oRqOQM7qho7BelPhRs7JqSBftIvcuq8GrSe0P/NeT iI2yQad172iswwodyIzbkhYyvscK8KWj2t673GfmCV2nIPDpeCxjwpoQINcPuAv3fl73 P84KwgHKOOmTPgaqOTuuz2ZaPhaicVhF+SUdWQJ6RSpOChTBnprLhZUFawDfOTdDDln7 T8wA==
Received: by 10.50.180.133 with SMTP id do5mr302779igc.2.1354329574190; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 18:39:34 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.76.200 with HTTP; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 18:38:53 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <9207CAAE-7907-4103-994C-07961030FAE9@employees.org>
References: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E98AB16AD@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <50B8ADAD.5010409@viagenie.ca> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E99E2D6F6@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <9207CAAE-7907-4103-994C-07961030FAE9@employees.org>
From: Qiong <bingxuere@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2012 10:38:53 +0800
Message-ID: <CAH3bfACEZC9tYfpyOXu8sCWAvD9uFou1tLAxESvwPavKV4HESw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="14dae93407ad2dad0004cfc16d7e"
Cc: "softwires@ietf.org" <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Unified Softwire CPE: draft-bfmk-softwire-unified-cpe
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: Sat, 01 Dec 2012 02:39:36 -0000

Hi Ole,

I think there is one more point, see inline ~~

On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 3:36 AM, Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:

> Med, et al,
>
> > Med: The rationale we adopted in this draft is as follows:
> >
> > * there are three major flavors: full stateful, full stateless, and
> binding mode
> > * all these modes can support assigning a full or a shared IPv4 address
>
> now you got me thinking, are these really the right modes from a CPE
> perspective?
>
> let me try to explain, with my CPE implementor hat on, what "modes" would
> make sense?
>
> - NAT placement. do I need a NAT on the CPE or not?
>   (no NAT && no IPv4 address == DS-lite)
> - full IPv4 address assigned.
>   I can assign the IPv4 address to the tunnel endpoint interface, and use
> that address for
>   local applications, and as the outbound address of the NAT
>   (mechanisms: MAP, Public 4over6)
> - IPv4 prefix assigned:
>   I need to disable the CPE NAT, and use the assigned IPv4 prefix as my
> LAN side DHCPv4 pool
>   (mechanism: MAP)
> - Shared IPv4 address.
>   I must enable a local NAT, I cannot assign the IPv4 address on the "WAN"
> interface, but only use it
>   for the outbound side of the NAT.
>
> then there might be a sub-modes for "tunnel endpoint determination" i.e.
> how to determine an IPv6 tunnel end point address given an IPv4 destination
> address and port.
> 1) algorithmic (MAP)
> 2) configured (Public 4over6, LW46, DS-lite)
>
> and a sub-mode for IPv4 address configuration:
> 1) As "native IPv4"
>     (Public4over6, LW46)
> 2) Embedded Address
>     (MAP)
> 3) None
>    DS-lite
>

[Qiong] and a sub-mode for "source IPv6 address determiniation", how to
determine the encapsulated IPv6 source address.
1) algorithmic, LAN prefix + embedded IPv4 address/PSID in Interface
Identifier (MAP)
2) WAN IPv6 address (DS-Lite, LW46, Public 4over6)

Right ?

Best wishes
Qiong

>
> does this make sense?
>
> cheers,
> Ole
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> Softwires@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>



-- 
==============================================
Qiong Sun
China Telecom Beijing Research Institude


Open source code:
lightweight 4over6: *http://sourceforge.net/projects/laft6/*
PCP-natcoord:* http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcpportsetdemo/ *
===============================================