Re: [Softwires] WG last call on draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-01

Peng Wu <pengwu.thu@gmail.com> Thu, 07 June 2012 16:30 UTC

Return-Path: <pengwu.thu@gmail.com>
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 0EB7511E808C for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 09:30:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.374
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.374 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.225, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 gYKsrez7BME1 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 09:30:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-f172.google.com (mail-qc0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2848611E8085 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 09:30:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qcsq13 with SMTP id q13so477975qcs.31 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:30:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=98Zk+3lGcXkQtxo17wohw/mkkXrxOGQdf4uTi4mcXSk=; b=yMYMtGnMQdSonIL3dD2Tb+jVznGk9juDe3vz1paOJVyrIMhTjPC0Ug54HSc5t2pjss UrL58sBAxJVx+spoMdnGJ9PwCQRY8crhgOsV+YMbmqJHkEhpDNA1R+dyccXCA+Fgfjep tXXKG7kFyVC0jLnkMkoIIN0Fx6jlFlVYvUXJ3sYhWoJqKLnvc/X40xrmD0j7zA9l+cx4 LtTwCKI6L61zZAhV13chfO940nTk3lnpdCyu0ZDpIkssJPqmVpfY4IfwxFFD9aDbfA7+ tkhohvNw25bLriD288L4dNp+u+XwLRm1pf77zp434j1v2/lMbMP6JoqDdv5w7taYz7Wv XXvA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.207.4 with SMTP id fw4mr2478493qab.82.1339086642528; Thu, 07 Jun 2012 09:30:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.30.203 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Jun 2012 09:30:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E32ED1EAF@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
References: <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B921EE69DBF@szxeml545-mbx.china.huawei.com> <CBE85FA8.5F48%repenno@cisco.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E32ED1EAF@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 00:30:42 +0800
Message-ID: <CAC16W0AdHufQntB0jtX3PhQNpehd75nezRTfB8JHMvFVtFcdvg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peng Wu <pengwu.thu@gmail.com>
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "softwires@ietf.org" <softwires@ietf.org>, Yong Cui <cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] WG last call on draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-01
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: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 16:30:49 -0000

Med,

>From protocol level, the difference between public 4over6 and
lightweight 4over6(b4-translated-ds-lite) lies in port-set support.
The extra efforts of lw 4over6 are as follows: (1) port set support in
DHCP provisioning; (2) NAT on the initiator side.(whose address pool
is not a full address but only a port set)  (3) port-set supporting in
the cocentrator's binding table.

While we may cover public 4over6 by lightweight 4over6 with a special
port set format (2^16 size) for (3), (1) and (2) brings quite
significant changes to the intiator side. If I'm only a pb 4over6
initiator, more typically a host initiator, all the complexity needed
is to plant a CRA process on the host, which is basically an IPv4 &
IPv6 socket function, to support DHCPv4-over-IPv6. The rest is already
there: we don't need to modify DHCP client, and IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel is
already supported in today's OS. No NAT is needed in host case, and
full e2e transparency is guaranteed. If we support this by lw 4over6,
we implemented extra complexity which is not needed at all by the
initiator.

We have deployement scenarios which probably don't require address
sharing, such as CERNET, and I guess maybe the ISPs in USA also do not
have an IPv4 address shortage problem?

So, aside from the fact that the pb 4over6 draft starts earlier and
its status has been a step furher, this is a problem of choice: do we
want two clean, simple mechanisms, or one mechanism trying to be
compatible with both.

On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 9:11 PM,  <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I agree with Reinaldo.
>
> IMHO it makes sense to merge the two documents: either draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6 be extended to cover draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite or add one or two sentences to draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite to mention a non-shared IPv4 address may be assigned.
>
> Doing so would help to rationalize the solution space and associated documents. We have the following main flavours:
>
> (1) Full stateful mode: DS-Lite
> (2) Full stateless mode: MAP
> (3) Per-customer state/binding mode: lw4o6 (draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite)
>
> All the three modes must support the ability to assign a full IPv4 address.
>
> Cheers,
> Med
>
>>-----Message d'origine-----
>>De : softwires-bounces@ietf.org
>>[mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Reinaldo Penno
>>Envoyé : lundi 28 mai 2012 07:53
>>À : Sheng Jiang; Yong Cui; softwires@ietf.org
>>Objet : Re: [Softwires] WG last call on
>>draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-01
>>
>>-1
>>
>>In which significant way this document is different from
>>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-
>>lite-06 ?
>>
>>We can insert one paragraph in the above draft and allow
>>public IPs since
>>NAT is optional. The two documents even use DHCPv4ov6 as provisioning.
>>
>>
>>
>>On 5/27/12 6:32 PM, "Sheng Jiang" <jiangsheng@huawei.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The document looks mature for being advanced.
>>>
>>>Sheng Jiang
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: softwires-bounces@ietf.org
>>[mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] On
>>>> Behalf Of Yong Cui
>>>> Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:31 PM
>>>> To: softwires@ietf.org
>>>> Cc: Yong Cui
>>>> Subject: [Softwires] WG last call on
>>draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-
>>>> 01
>>>>
>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>
>>>> This is a wg last call on draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-01.
>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6/
>>>>
>>>> As usual, please send editorial comments to the authors and
>>>> substantive comments to the mailing list.
>>>>
>>>> This wg last call will end on 2012 June 10 at 12pm EDT.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yong & Alain
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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