Re: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan

Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net> Thu, 09 February 2012 08:40 UTC

Return-Path: <despres.remi@laposte.net>
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 2237021F8613 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 00:40:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.791
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.791 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.158, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 tqDVFFQ34iC3 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 00:40:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp21.services.sfr.fr (smtp21.services.sfr.fr [93.17.128.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FC7721F854D for <softwires@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 00:40:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from filter.sfr.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by msfrf2116.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id D59CF700013E; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:40:01 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.0.21] (per92-10-88-166-221-144.fbx.proxad.net [88.166.221.144]) by msfrf2116.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 97CFA70000BF; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:40:01 +0100 (CET)
X-SFR-UUID: 20120209084001621.97CFA70000BF@msfrf2116.sfr.fr
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: <CAD6AjGStQykwzBYjHxEGXUY=hhtLYgvBbB37ogq9ntXXf+-C8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 09:40:01 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B54428D6-9D4F-4E11-9664-95D3BB225268@laposte.net>
References: <CAD6AjGTfQ4akndGG3C9k7SZU=4BpuA4qrorg1FeV5u8wEJRdaA@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGS7TBhUVJjwjqMibXJRo1Y=F4UKcDmYXfh-9OUDe=Me0w@mail.gmail.com> <CAC8QAccCa_6g-LQRvfx2MSNDFH09Vb_kjBHSVk6-5uiTUTYX_A@mail.gmail.com> <6DA169B8-57BC-4CCC-B8E1-25FBB9F9BD2A@laposte.net> <CAD6AjGStQykwzBYjHxEGXUY=hhtLYgvBbB37ogq9ntXXf+-C8Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-sfr-mailing: LEGIT
Cc: softwires@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan
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, 09 Feb 2012 08:40:04 -0000

Le 2012-02-08 à 20:49, Cameron Byrne a écrit :

> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net> wrote:
>> 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)
> 
> Hmm... we may be getting off topic.
> 
> 464XLAT definitely shares IPv4 addresses on the PLAT -- That is RFC
> 6146 -- statefule NAT64.

Well, if a customer _uses_ 464XLAT, it does get a full IPv4 address (sec 6.1). 
I don't see why a customer that has both an IPv6 prefix (used for more and more of its traffic) and a full public IPv4 address would need needs to use a NAT64.

464XLAT has a DNS proxy in CLATs, which I find a GOOD feature.

Besides that, it ressembles to a subset of some solutions worked on in Softwire, restricted to full IPv4 addresses and to hub and spoke.
Relationship with these other solutions belongs AFAIK to Softwire. 

> Perhaps what you mean to say is that 464XLAT uses stateful sharing of
> IPv4 addresses as defined in RFC6146.  The public IPv4 address
> resources are decoupled from the IPv4 service deployment at the edge.
> This is more flexible, IPv4 efficient, and allows for geographic
> redundancy of the translation exit points.
> 
> So, to summarize.  Both 4RD and 464XLAT support address sharing. One
> is stateless and the other is stateful.

> 
>> - 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).
>> 
> 
> 4RD over 6RD?
> 
> That is a lot of RD :)

IPv4 Residual Deployment over IPv6 Rapid Deployment, why not?
It is AFAIK a stateless alternative to PCP in DS-lite.

Regards,
RD



> 
> I believe the implementation report here shows that 464XLAT provides a
> good users experience on 3G networks
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg11906.html
> 
> CB
> 
>> 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