Re: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan

Hi Behcet,

Le 2012-02-08 à 09:46, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit :

> Hi Cameron,
> 4rd solution IMHO is more suitable for a fixed network. CPE in 4rd is
> not appropriate to be hosted in a UE.
> 
> I think your solution 464XLAT's mobile part is way better for your
> purposes. There you can put all your IPv4 resources on the PLAT box so
> that CLAT box is kept simpler.
> 
> In 4rd, CPEs have A+P and BR is kept "stateless" these are not so
> useful for your purposes, I think.

Note however that:
- 464XLAT doesn't support shared IPv4 addresses (while 4rd does)
- 4rd over 6rd can work, and therefore offer both IPv6 and shared-address IPv4 on an RFC1918 network, e.g. on a 3GPP IPv4 PDP (while 464XLAT cannot AFAIK).

Regards,
RD

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Behcet
> 
> 
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Are the map and 4rd solutions deployable for existing networks that do not
>> have reserves  of ipv4 ?  My assumption is that these solutions target
>> existing networks that have meaningful growth and they need a v6 solution.
>> 
>> If yes, how? Any pointers within the reams of drafts I should look for?
>> 
>> In my brief and simple skimming, it appears to me that setting up one of
>> these solutions would require me to collapse my existing network to harvest
>> back the addresses so that they may be redeployed in map.
>> 
>> What would the deployment process be for an address exhausted network of 10
>> million subs with 10% annual growth be?
>> 
>> Cb
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Softwires mailing list
>> Softwires@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> Softwires@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires