Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9mi_Despr=E9s?= <despres.remi@laposte.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAC8QAccCa_6g-LQRvfx2MSNDFH09Vb_kjBHSVk6-5uiTUTYX_A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 10:23:27 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6DA169B8-57BC-4CCC-B8E1-25FBB9F9BD2A@laposte.net>
References: <CAD6AjGTfQ4akndGG3C9k7SZU=4BpuA4qrorg1FeV5u8wEJRdaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD6AjGS7TBhUVJjwjqMibXJRo1Y=F4UKcDmYXfh-9OUDe=Me0w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAC8QAccCa_6g-LQRvfx2MSNDFH09Vb_kjBHSVk6-5uiTUTYX_A@mail.gmail.com>
To: sarikaya@ieee.org
Cc: softwires@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan
Precedence: list

Hi Behcet,

Le 2012-02-08 =E0 09:46, Behcet Sarikaya a =E9crit :

> Hi Cameron,
> 4rd solution IMHO is more suitable for a fixed network. CPE in 4rd is
> not appropriate to be hosted in a UE.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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

>=20
> Regards,
>=20
> Behcet
>=20
>=20
> 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.
>>=20
>> If yes, how? Any pointers within the reams of drafts I should look =
for?
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> What would the deployment process be for an address exhausted network =
of 10
>> million subs with 10% annual growth be?
>>=20
>> Cb
>>=20
>>=20
>> _______________________________________________
>> Softwires mailing list
>> Softwires@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>>=20
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> Softwires@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires