Re: [Softwires] [softwire]Basic Requirements for Customer Edge Routers

"Yuchi Chen" <chenycmx@gmail.com> Sun, 01 April 2012 07:44 UTC

Return-Path: <chenycmx@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 AFE1921F86A0 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 00:44:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.797
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.797 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=2.796, 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 Zn70czIHBnrV for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 00:44:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1741121F8697 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Sun, 1 Apr 2012 00:44:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iazz13 with SMTP id z13so3357462iaz.31 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Sun, 01 Apr 2012 00:44:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:reply-to:subject:references:x-priority:x-guid :x-has-attach:x-mailer:mime-version:message-id:content-type; bh=Ln1Y2dohy0D1MV25H0BWnW1YQdZbH0x7Yy2GMGMhh0Y=; b=jOo6QJECxVYMxN4FYpPDnphz6l+3aaTlBwVr/ZeKINGRK+HqeNbyoe5ZvNfrJGEU/U yFwWDjFretTDKXGfW8aFZE1bHiBKxP5C9x8EPcAEQKbDL97u+G22oZOCz3BV5IvKn7O0 yrbBE8o3akcJ1kjZHESNJboEbYmmLjBXKSdtDgERzAG4mmPuoOieTBboWDeU5Rlaq0Gi 6K4zyRT0tmaJgOT2NdVxsonfjgKksqnF7bknNBxsVHP4pfxuHgHOCTvsLIDDZ14VOEhJ gFkIKw98ozjsso/ssb4GMyAdKf4h30uGooPGietjHBD8g2GIBfMrBmrUV3GiC1DndVB2 utfg==
Received: by 10.50.140.101 with SMTP id rf5mr2649780igb.27.1333266285661; Sun, 01 Apr 2012 00:44:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from flashfox-PC ([166.111.68.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id vr4sm18188520igb.1.2012.04.01.00.44.42 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 01 Apr 2012 00:44:44 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 15:44:42 +0800
From: Yuchi Chen <chenycmx@gmail.com>
To: sunjingwen <sunjingwen@live.cn>
References: <BLU0-SMTP460447F08D87596DC498D04D14F0@phx.gbl>
X-Priority: 3
X-GUID: 332E22C3-804D-4917-85A3-582853E03CB2
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.0.1.90[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2012040115443836452736@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart307385056321_=----"
Cc: softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] [softwire]Basic Requirements for Customer Edge Routers
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: chenycmx <chenycmx@gmail.com>
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: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 07:44:46 -0000

Dear Sun,

It seems that you have missed some statements in the draft. In section 4.3, 
there are some lines clarifying 3 principles for IPv4 interface selection, just 
above the words you quoted:
>1.  IPv6 transport is preferred over any other.

>2.  Less address translation occurrences is preferred over more.
       [RFC5864][I-D.donley-nat444-impacts]

>3.  The closer the state is to the edge, the better.[RFC1958]
According to the first principle, the IPv6 transport is prior to any  other. That 
is the reason why the DS-Lite tunnel interface is preferred to native IPv4 one.

Actually, I have another question about this point. I think the question is 
not 'Why not use Native IPv4 interface for better performance', but 'Why prefer
the IPv6 tunnel interface to the native IPv4 interface'. I didn't find the answer in
the draft. Perhaps I've missed some words as well. IMHO, a clarification of the
reason could be provided in the draft, and thus the principles about might seem
to be more convictive.

Best Regards!



Yuchi Chen

From: sunjingwen
Date: 2012-04-01 11:05
To: mark; ot
CC: softwires WG
Subject: [Softwires] [softwire]Basic Requirements for Customer Edge Routers
Dear authors,
I've read the draft-townsley-troan-ipv6-ce-transitioning-02, and I have a question confused me very much.
 
In section 4.3, 
>In the case of DS-Lite and Native IPv4 configuration being present at the same time, 
>DS-Lite would be preferred as it uses IPv6 transport and Native IPv4 does not.
 
Do you mean if the CE receive user’s IPv4 packet, it will choose to use tunnel rather than IPv4?
But I think if use native IPv4 can also arrive the destination (IPv4 internet), the native IPv4 will more efficient than the tunnel, because it needn’t encapsulation and decapsulation.
 
Please correct me if there is any mistake~
 
     Thank you




Best regards!
sun jingwen