Re: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan

"Lee, Yiu" <Yiu_Lee@Cable.Comcast.com> Wed, 08 February 2012 18:39 UTC

Return-Path: <yiu_lee@cable.comcast.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 C16E921F85D2 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 10:39:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.269
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.269 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.338, BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 g9MYgcO2VYvP for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 10:39:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cable.comcast.com (copdcavout01.cable.comcast.com [76.96.32.253]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECBAB21F85C4 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 10:39:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([24.40.55.42]) by copdcavout01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP id C7WM3M1.5548619; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:30:07 -0700
Received: from PACDCEXMB05.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::a5b0:e5c4:df1b:2367]) by PACDCEXHUB01.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::d1e7:20b5:9b63:21a6%11]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:39:47 -0500
From: "Lee, Yiu" <Yiu_Lee@Cable.Comcast.com>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9mi_Despr=E9s?= <remi.despres@free.fr>, Tina Tsou <tina.tsou.zouting@huawei.com>
Thread-Topic: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan
Thread-Index: AQHM5pEHxLw5CtuzHkqSHRKm7413Mw==
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 18:39:46 +0000
Message-ID: <CB582B0A.1C4E6%yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com>
In-Reply-To: <0EE6D5C4-5C1D-484E-9BEA-45E072F7418F@free.fr>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.14.0.111121
x-originating-ip: [24.40.55.70]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <53A61CF81691BB4E9E820CC29FE48157@cable.comcast.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: Softwires WG <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: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:39:53 -0000

Hi Remi,

I know this is possible to do, in theory. However my question is more
toward manageability of the network. IMHO, layering one tunnel (or
translation) protocol on another tunnel protocol is asking for trouble.

Cheers,
/Yiu

On 2/8/12 2:13 AM, "Rémi Després" <remi.despres@free.fr> wrote:

>6rd can be deployed over Net-10 networks (RFC1918) to deployIPv6.
>Shared public IPv4 addresses can then be offered to customers via this
>IPv6.
>Such a use case, based on the header-mappiong variant of 4rd-U rather
>than on a double MAP encapsulation, is described in
>tools.ietf.org/html/draft-despres-softwire-4rd-u-03#section-5.4.
>
>RD
>