Re: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan

Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com> Wed, 08 February 2012 11:04 UTC

Return-Path: <sarikaya2012@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 74A1721F86A4 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 03:04:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.357
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.357 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.058, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 MKgNfj2xM4Im for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 03:04:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4A7021F86A2 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 03:04:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ghbg16 with SMTP id g16so147614ghb.31 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 03:04:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=DZ7P09JwJ5Oq+OqSHvL358KaSYVwR6u0iANxMPiYo10=; b=h5cWLw5cRZBWyUgqp7edBgUbfJdzAwEGln0gtiz1eS0HKqXYwjsg+E95FTevgw5nxu 7c/D3rhqyCRyVFgYF9TDx8VG1KbWGLrIlUJwCtzqC126sqZzA2Jkq3G9bGOwbgNHQPXw 76R4Iw0XlXXBj5NokHYj21Dc/5FdGgIGFIQXQ=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.236.197.1 with SMTP id s1mr11988466yhn.89.1328699050486; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 03:04:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.236.170.163 with HTTP; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 03:04:10 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <6DA169B8-57BC-4CCC-B8E1-25FBB9F9BD2A@laposte.net>
References: <CAD6AjGTfQ4akndGG3C9k7SZU=4BpuA4qrorg1FeV5u8wEJRdaA@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGS7TBhUVJjwjqMibXJRo1Y=F4UKcDmYXfh-9OUDe=Me0w@mail.gmail.com> <CAC8QAccCa_6g-LQRvfx2MSNDFH09Vb_kjBHSVk6-5uiTUTYX_A@mail.gmail.com> <6DA169B8-57BC-4CCC-B8E1-25FBB9F9BD2A@laposte.net>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 05:04:10 -0600
Message-ID: <CAC8QAccDnsZuTgem4-cYnUM6yLSSXpu0f5tEgdnGUWXaQjuA4Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2012@gmail.com>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?B?UultaSBEZXNwculz?= <despres.remi@laposte.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: softwires@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org
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: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:04:11 -0000

Hi Remi,

4rd would be quite applicable for some UEs, e.g. mobile routers which
are in charge of a 3G/4G uplink and manage several devices connected
to them such as in vehicles.

Regards,

Behcet

On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net> wrote:
> Hi Behcet,
>
> Le 2012-02-08 à 09:46, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit :
>
>> Hi Cameron,
>> 4rd solution IMHO is more suitable for a fixed network. CPE in 4rd is
>> not appropriate to be hosted in a UE.
>>
>> I think your solution 464XLAT's mobile part is way better for your
>> purposes. There you can put all your IPv4 resources on the PLAT box so
>> that CLAT box is kept simpler.
>>
>> In 4rd, CPEs have A+P and BR is kept "stateless" these are not so
>> useful for your purposes, I think.
>
> Note however that:
> - 464XLAT doesn't support shared IPv4 addresses (while 4rd does)
> - 4rd over 6rd can work, and therefore offer both IPv6 and shared-address IPv4 on an RFC1918 network, e.g. on a 3GPP IPv4 PDP (while 464XLAT cannot AFAIK).
>
> Regards,
> RD
>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Behcet
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Softwires mailing list
>> Softwires@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires