Re: [Softwires] DS-Lite vs. 4rd

Dear Edward,

Qiong could send you the LW4o6 OpenWRT link.

Thank you,
Tina

> 在 2015年10月23日，上午5:50，Edward Lopez <elopez@fortinet.com> 写道：
> 
> Thanks!  I’m interested in solutions that have implementations available, and OpenWRT would do nicely
> 
>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 5:19 PM, Gottlieb, Jordan J <Jordan.Gottlieb@charter.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Edward,
>> 
>> MAP-T (RFC7599) and MAP-E (RFC7577) also address the issues you describe.  Both CE MAP variants can be enabled in OpenWRT and can be provisioned manually or through DHCPv6 (RFC7598).  Another excellent manual provisioned implementation is at http://enog.jp/~masakazu/vyatta/map/.  There are several commercial  CE and BR implementations in the pipeline for MAP-T.  
>> 
>> -Jordan
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Softwires [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Edward Lopez
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 6:29 AM
>> To: softwires@ietf.org
>> Subject: [Softwires] DS-Lite vs. 4rd
>> 
>> I apologize if this has been thrashed out in the past.  In looking as implementing DS-Lite support, it appears that the need to include an additional tuple of information on the IPv6 B4 address of the CPE is cumbersome to NAT performance and tunnel capacitance, as many HW accelerated NAT engines exist without this extra tuple.  It would appear that by splitting the AFTR into two functions, 4in6 encapsulation & NAT(CGN), we can overcome scaling and performance issues of DS-Lite.
>> 
>> However, the issue of overlapping endpoint subnets supported internally by the CPE leads to the issue potentially supporting NAT44 on the CPE, to support stateless encapsulation of returning IPv4 packets into IPv6 by the AFTR.  Section 4.2 of RFC-6333 states that CPE devices ‘should not’ perform NAT44, but that’s not the same as a ‘must not’
>> 
>> But as you craft this solution out, you begin to realize that you are re-creating the majority of 4rd, RFC-7600.  However, 4rd is currently an experimental standard.
>> 
>> My questions:
>> 
>> -    Has anyone implemented or considered implementing DS-Lite with CPEs performing NAT44?
>> -    Are their plans for this WG to move 4rd into standards track?
>> -    Are their any known implementations of 4rd out there for CPE devices (like OpenWRT)?
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> Ed Lopez
>> ***  Please note that this message and any attachments may contain confidential and proprietary material and information and are intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and destroy this e-mail and any attachments and all copies, whether electronic or printed.
>> Please also note that any views, opinions, conclusions or commitments expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and do not necessarily reflect the views of Fortinet, Inc., its affiliates, and emails are not binding on Fortinet and only a writing manually signed by Fortinet's General Counsel can be a binding commitment of Fortinet to Fortinet's customers or partners. Thank you. ** _______________________________________________
>> Softwires mailing list
>> Softwires@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
> 
> 
> ***  Please note that this message and any attachments may contain confidential 
> and proprietary material and information and are intended only for the use of 
> the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby 
> notified that any review, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying 
> of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received 
> this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and destroy this e-mail 
> and any attachments and all copies, whether electronic or printed.
> Please also note that any views, opinions, conclusions or commitments expressed 
> in this message are those of the individual sender and do not necessarily reflect 
> the views of Fortinet, Inc., its affiliates, and emails are not binding on 
> Fortinet and only a writing manually signed by Fortinet's General Counsel can be 
> a binding commitment of Fortinet to Fortinet's customers or partners. Thank you. ***
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> Softwires@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires