Re: [Softwires] Unified Softwire CPE: draft-bfmk-softwire-unified-cpe

Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org> Fri, 30 November 2012 19:36 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 065A821F89A7 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 11:36:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 42d4rL+4pbHW for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 11:36:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FF3B21F88E9 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 11:36:33 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAGEKuVCQ/khL/2dsb2JhbABEv38Wc4IeAQEEAXkFCwtGV4gjBsAGjVqCRmEDm2uKWYJz
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6912"; a="78710404"
Received: from ams-core-2.cisco.com ([144.254.72.75]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Nov 2012 19:36:23 +0000
Received: from [10.61.105.205] (dhcp-10-61-105-205.cisco.com [10.61.105.205]) by ams-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qAUJaNsT017809 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 30 Nov 2012 19:36:23 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E99E2D6F6@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 20:36:24 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9207CAAE-7907-4103-994C-07961030FAE9@employees.org>
References: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E98AB16AD@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <50B8ADAD.5010409@viagenie.ca> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E99E2D6F6@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: "softwires@ietf.org" <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Unified Softwire CPE: draft-bfmk-softwire-unified-cpe
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: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 19:36:35 -0000

Med, et al,

> Med: The rationale we adopted in this draft is as follows:
> 
> * there are three major flavors: full stateful, full stateless, and binding mode
> * all these modes can support assigning a full or a shared IPv4 address

now you got me thinking, are these really the right modes from a CPE perspective?

let me try to explain, with my CPE implementor hat on, what "modes" would make sense?

- NAT placement. do I need a NAT on the CPE or not?
  (no NAT && no IPv4 address == DS-lite)
- full IPv4 address assigned.
  I can assign the IPv4 address to the tunnel endpoint interface, and use that address for
  local applications, and as the outbound address of the NAT
  (mechanisms: MAP, Public 4over6)
- IPv4 prefix assigned:
  I need to disable the CPE NAT, and use the assigned IPv4 prefix as my LAN side DHCPv4 pool
  (mechanism: MAP)
- Shared IPv4 address.
  I must enable a local NAT, I cannot assign the IPv4 address on the "WAN" interface, but only use it
  for the outbound side of the NAT.

then there might be a sub-modes for "tunnel endpoint determination" i.e. how to determine an IPv6 tunnel end point address given an IPv4 destination address and port.
1) algorithmic (MAP)
2) configured (Public 4over6, LW46, DS-lite)

and a sub-mode for IPv4 address configuration:
1) As "native IPv4"
    (Public4over6, LW46)
2) Embedded Address
    (MAP)
3) None
   DS-lite

does this make sense?

cheers,
Ole