Re: [Softwires] Is there any intest in re-visiting the Unified CPE Problem?

Hi Ian & softwirers，

  I have reviewed the document. I agree with Linda.
  Since there are many transition technologies, appling the 
method of this document, is it necessary to analyze any other 
technologies except MAP/LW4o6/DS-Lite?

Thanks,
Wei

"Softwires" <softwires-bounces@ietf.org> Re 2014/08/21 15:14:04:

> Hi，Ian 
> 
>  Since multiple IPv6 transitions technologies have been deployed in 
> current network. It seems 
> urgent to have a standard draft providing a unified mechanism to 
> integrate these 
> scenarioes in a network with unifed cpe(s) and unifed network 
> gateway(s), as well as unified 
> provisioning mechanism. 
> 
>  I guess it would be better advanced if some problems listed below 
> can be better addressed: 
> 
>  1. whether it would be better to expand the IPv4-in-IPv6 softwire 
> to all softwires including 
>     IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel、IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnel and translation 
> mechanism. Because no matter 
>     encapsulation or decapsulation or translation are all basic 
> funtions for cpe(s).It seems 
>     kind of limited if this draft is only restricted to 
IPv4-in-IPv6softwire.
> 
>  2. It seems better to notify directly the role of the unified 
> cpe(s):whether this cpe is a B4 
>     or a lwB4 or a MAP-E CE or a MAP-T CE, through a DHCP option or 
> TR-069. Because it seems 
>     kind of complicated for the unifed cpe to ascertain what role it is. 

> 
> After all, only reviving it, then we can complete it in a better 
fashion. 
> 
> BRs, 
> Linda Wang 
> 
> 
> "Softwires" <softwires-bounces@ietf.org> 写于 2014-08-20 20:20:16:
> 
> > <ian.farrer@telekom.de> 
> > 发件人:  "Softwires" <softwires-bounces@ietf.org>
> > 
> > 2014-08-20 20:20 
> > 
> > 收件人 
> > 
> > <softwires@ietf.org>, 
> > 
> > 抄送 
> > 
> > draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe@tools.ietf.org 
> > 
> > 主题 
> > 
> > [Softwires] Is there any intest in re-visiting the Unified CPE 
Problem? 
> > 
> > Hi, 
> > 
> > At the last Softwire meeting in Toronto, I presented a question 
> > around whether the expired Unified CPE draft needs to be brought 
> > back to life (http://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-softwire-
> > unified-cpe-01.txt). There was little support for this during the 
> > meeting, so I’m taking it to the list to gauge if there’s wider 
> > interest in this problem. 
> > 
> > Currently in our network we are facing some of the problems that the
> > Unified CPE intended to solve. Specifically, we will have DS-Lite, 
> > lw4o6 and public 4over6 in the operator network. The deployed HGWs 
> > may support DS-Lite only (RFC6204 compliant ‘off-the-shelf’ CPEs) or
> > may be capable of all three. A individual HGW may also need to use 
> > different mechanisms at different points in its lifecycle (e.g. 
> > lw4o6 initially, but public 4over6 if the customer is located a full
> > IPv4 address to use with non A+P compatible L4 protocols) 
> > 
> > So, my questions here are whether there are other operators (or 
> > vendors) that see problems of this type in their networks, and is 
> > there enough interest to open up the unified CPE problem again? 
> > 
> > Thanks, 
> > Ian 
> >  _______________________________________________
> > 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