Re: [Softwires] comments on draft-carpenter-softwire-sample-00

[Mark Townsley <[e-mail]>]

On 9/29/10 7:30 AM, WashamFan wrote:
> Hi Remi,
> 
> Personally, I think it is very meaningful to address tunneling
> IPv6 over IPv4 with NAT traversal issue, especially in China.
> We have less IPv4 address space assigned at the first place,
> compared to the huge population, the address per person
> ratio is very low, I suspect some ISPs have already deployed
> some kind of NATs somewhere in their network. (As myself,
> I got 10/8 from my provider). In the other hand, we bought
> CPE outselves, the ISP can not control the CPES most of
> time, I am afraid. 

There are still plenty of providers in the US and EU that sell service
without control of the CPE. For newer "3-play" DSL and FTTH service it
is trending more towards an SP-provided CPE, but there is still plenty
of consumer-purchased CPE out there.

I think in 2011 you are going to see more and more 6rd with the DHCP
option on products that you can buy from your local electronics stores.
If the SP sets up a BR and offers the DHCP option, 6rd should work
reasonably well even with consumer purchased CPE.

> That is very different from that in Europe
> or America, I guess. My impression is, from my experience
> surfing the Internet, I would go thru one layer NAT (deployed
> by my provider in my residential building) and a 192.168
> network (somewhere in the SP network) before I hit the 
> Internet finally. 

If you add your own NAT in your apartment, that's at least 3 levels of
NAT...

> 
> When my ISP is going to provide IPv6 to me, let's say,
> 6rd as the first step, the existing complex network arch would
> hinder the classic 6rd deployed.

...That many levels of NAT is a hindrance for the SP to deploy just
about anything.

I have one important question here: Are you looking for a solution that
you can convince your provider to deploy and support, or something that
you can setup independent of your provider? Given the situation, it
sounds to me like more of the latter.

- Mark

> 
> I am looking forward to the new combined proposal.
> 
> Thanks,
> washam
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rémi Després <[e-mail]>
> Date: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 1:03 am
> Subject: Re: [Softwires] comments on draft-carpenter-softwire-sample-00
> To: WashamFan <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> 
> 
>> Hi Washam,
>>  
>>  As Brian suggested, it might be best to wait for the new proposal (we 
>> work together on it).
>>  It is intended to combine, improve, and complete, 
>> draft-carpenter-6man-sample and draft-despres-softwire-6rdplus. 
>>  
>>  Traffic between two NAT44 sites is, as you suggested, always based on 
>> hairpinning (simpler and, even more important IMHO, resistant to all 
>> odd NAT behaviors).
>>  
>>  Its other distinctive property is that hosts behind the same NAT44 
>> communicate directly within their site using their IPv6 addresses.
>>  
>>  Your comments will be most welcome when the draft is available.
>>  
>>  Regards,
>>  RD
>>  
>>  
>>    
>>  Le 28 sept. 2010 à 03:49, WashamFan a écrit :
>>  
>>  > Hi,
>>  > 
>>  > Please see inline.
>>  > 
>>  > ----- Original Message -----
>>  > From: Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>
>>  > Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 4:17 am
>>  > Subject: Re: [Softwires] comments on draft-carpenter-softwire-sample-00
>>  > To: WashamFan <[e-mail]>
>>  > Cc: [e-mail]
>>  > 
>>  > 
>>  >> Hi,
>>  >> 
>>  >> On 2010-09-27 21:05, WashamFan wrote:
>>  >>> Hi,
>>  >>> 
>>  >>> It says,
>>  >>> 
>>  >>>   The SAMPLE server will act as an IPv6 router.  In the simplest 
>> case,
>>  >>>   it will forward all IPv6 packets to a default route, except those
>>  >>>   whose destination address lies within the PSAMPLE prefix, which 
>>
>>  >> will
>>  >>>   be encapsulated and sent towards the host (CPE) and port 
>>  >> indicated by
>>  >>>   the V4ADDR and PN values.
>>  >>> 
>>  >>> 
>>  >>> I think it is not appropriate to assume NAT traversal without
>>  >>> relay can be always successful. 
>>  >> 
>>  >> I don't understand your comment. If you have a NAT that you cannot
>>  >> traverse with UDP, you have many other problems, not just a lack
>>  >> of IPv6 connectivity.
>>  > 
>>  > I misunderstood. I thought the text implies direct tunnels established
>>  > instead of hairpinning via SAMPLE server when SAMPLE client to 
>>  > SAMPLE client communication occurs . 
>>  > 
>>  >>> Hairpinning might be always used
>>  >>> for simplicity.
>>  >> 
>>  >> Yes, that is the SAMPLE model. And it's a discussion for the
>>  >> community whether or not this is acceptable.
>>  >> 
>>  >>> 
>>  >>> I'd like to know the status of the draft, is the WG pursuing this
>>  >>> work?
>>  >> 
>>  >> There are three drafts aiming at the same problem, SAMPLE,
>>  >> draft-lee-softwire-6rd-udp, and draft-despres-softwire-6rdplus.
>>  >> Please hold your breath, there's hope of a joint proposal
>>  >> from several authors within a few days.
>>  > 
>>  > Is it possible to combine all these efforts? I see 2 major 
>>  > difference between  draft-carpenter-softwire-sample-00
>>  > and draft-lee-softwire-6rd-udp-02 at least:
>>  > 
>>  > 1. According to the IPv6 address assignment, SAMPLE
>>  > is  to connect isolated IPv6 hosts but 6rd-udp is to connect
>>  > both isolated IPv6 hosts and LANs.
>>  > 
>>  > 2. They are different in terms of IPv6 address assignment
>>  > procedure. SAMPLE uses ND but 6rd-udp might use RADIUS,
>>  > let's say.
>>  > 
>>  > Personally, I think it is meaningful to work on tunneling
>>  > IPv6 traversing NAT, but I think we should justify the work
>>  > by clarifying how bad Teredo did the job before we reinvent
>>  > the wheel.
>>  > 
>>  > THanks,
>>  > washam
>>  > 
>>  > 
>>  >>    Brian
>>  >> 
>>  > _______________________________________________
>>  > Softwires mailing list
>>  > [e-mail]
>>  > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>>  
>>  
>>  
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>