IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Softwires] Fw: I-D Action: draft-mawatari-softwire-464xlat-00.txt

MAWATARI Masataka <mawatari@jpix.ad.jp> Mon, 28 November 2011 02:43 UTC

Return-Path: <mawatari@jpix.ad.jp>
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 BA01521F8AF1 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Nov 2011 18:43:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.41
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.41 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265]
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 WuP5Jep6UCpK for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Nov 2011 18:43:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx20.jpix.ad.jp (mx20.jpix.ad.jp [210.171.225.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8FA921F85EF for <softwires@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Nov 2011 18:43:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.10.31.235] (eth3-1-bb-fw-34.jpix.ad.jp [210.171.226.102]) by mx20.jpix.ad.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57F05FC021; Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:43:02 +0900 (JST)
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:43:03 +0900
From: MAWATARI Masataka <mawatari@jpix.ad.jp>
To: nejc@skoberne.net
In-Reply-To: <4ECE3B3C.8070703@skoberne.net>
References: <20111016175357kawashimam@mail.jp.nec.com> <4ECE3B3C.8070703@skoberne.net>
Message-Id: <20111128114302.0960.8FE1F57E@jpix.ad.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Becky! ver. 2.57.03 [ja]
Cc: softwires@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Fw: I-D Action: draft-mawatari-softwire-464xlat-00.txt
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: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 02:43:12 -0000

Dear Nejc,


Thank you for your comment at this list and IETF 82 meeting.
Sorry. We could not explain well at the venue.

We will clearly write our motivation and our reasons for using
combinational existing techniques (RFC 6145 & 6146) in 464XLAT draft.
Most points are described by Cameron. Thanks.

As you said, 464XLAT is partly similar to DS-Lite. But 464XLAT can
separately utilize CLAT (Customer side equipment) and PLAT (Provider
side equipment). This means that IPv4 address sharing (4-6-4) and
IPv4/IPv6 translating (4-6 and 6-4) at the same time. This is most
different from DS-Lite. So it would not make sense to merge.

If you have any idea, please continuously share.


Kind Regards,
Masataka MAWATARI


* On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 13:40:28 +0100
* Nejc ?koberne <nejc@skoberne.net> wrote:

> Dear Masanobu,
> 
> > I would appreciate it if you could comment to our document.
> 
> as I said at IETF 82 in Taipei, I hope you will provide further 
> motivation for your solution. As far as I know, the only one now
> is that "RFC6145 is the only thing the CPE has to be compatible with"
> in order to make this work. How is this different from "RFCXXXX
> (eg. RFC 6333) is the only thing the CPE has to be compatible with
> in order to make DS-Lite work?
> 
> Also, it would be great if you expressed effort on trying to merge
> your solution with other proposed solutions in some way. As far as
> I see it at the moment, the idea is to have few final solutions
> which will be pushed forward by this WG.
> 
> Thanks,
> Nejc

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email