Re: [Softwires] comments on draft-carpenter-softwire-sample-00

Hi Washam,

As Brian suggested, it might be best to wait for the new proposal (we work together on it).
It is intended to combine, improve, and complete, draft-carpenter-6man-sample and draft-despres-softwire-6rdplus. 

Traffic between two NAT44 sites is, as you suggested, always based on hairpinning (simpler and, even more important IMHO, resistant to all odd NAT behaviors).

Its other distinctive property is that hosts behind the same NAT44 communicate directly within their site using their IPv6 addresses.

Your comments will be most welcome when the draft is available.

Regards,
RD

Le 28 sept. 2010 à 03:49, WashamFan a écrit :

> Hi,
> 
> Please see inline.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
> Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 4:17 am
> Subject: Re: [Softwires] comments on draft-carpenter-softwire-sample-00
> To: WashamFan <Washam.Fan@huaweisymantec.com>
> Cc: softwires@ietf.org
> 
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> On 2010-09-27 21:05, WashamFan wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> It says,
>>> 
>>>   The SAMPLE server will act as an IPv6 router.  In the simplest case,
>>>   it will forward all IPv6 packets to a default route, except those
>>>   whose destination address lies within the PSAMPLE prefix, which 
>> will
>>>   be encapsulated and sent towards the host (CPE) and port 
>> indicated by
>>>   the V4ADDR and PN values.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I think it is not appropriate to assume NAT traversal without
>>> relay can be always successful. 
>> 
>> I don't understand your comment. If you have a NAT that you cannot
>> traverse with UDP, you have many other problems, not just a lack
>> of IPv6 connectivity.
> 
> I misunderstood. I thought the text implies direct tunnels established
> instead of hairpinning via SAMPLE server when SAMPLE client to 
> SAMPLE client communication occurs . 
> 
>>> Hairpinning might be always used
>>> for simplicity.
>> 
>> Yes, that is the SAMPLE model. And it's a discussion for the
>> community whether or not this is acceptable.
>> 
>>> 
>>> I'd like to know the status of the draft, is the WG pursuing this
>>> work?
>> 
>> There are three drafts aiming at the same problem, SAMPLE,
>> draft-lee-softwire-6rd-udp, and draft-despres-softwire-6rdplus.
>> Please hold your breath, there's hope of a joint proposal
>> from several authors within a few days.
> 
> Is it possible to combine all these efforts? I see 2 major 
> difference between  draft-carpenter-softwire-sample-00
> and draft-lee-softwire-6rd-udp-02 at least:
> 
> 1. According to the IPv6 address assignment, SAMPLE
> is  to connect isolated IPv6 hosts but 6rd-udp is to connect
> both isolated IPv6 hosts and LANs.
> 
> 2. They are different in terms of IPv6 address assignment
> procedure. SAMPLE uses ND but 6rd-udp might use RADIUS,
> let's say.
> 
> Personally, I think it is meaningful to work on tunneling
> IPv6 traversing NAT, but I think we should justify the work
> by clarifying how bad Teredo did the job before we reinvent
> the wheel.
> 
> THanks,
> washam
> 
> 
>>    Brian
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> Softwires@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires