Re: [Softwires] Is there any intest in re-visiting the Unified CPE Problem?

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Ian,

Thank you for initiating this thread.

I do still think this draft is useful. The motivations for writing it are still valid.

Cheers,
Med

De : Softwires [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de [e-mail]
Envoyé : mercredi 20 août 2014 14:20
À : [e-mail]
Cc : [e-mail]
Objet : [Softwires] Is there any intest in re-visiting the Unified CPE Problem?

Hi,

At the last Softwire meeting in Toronto, I presented a question around whether the expired Unified CPE draft needs to be brought back to life (http://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe-01.txt). There was little support for this during the meeting, so I'm taking it to the list to gauge if there's wider interest in this problem.

Currently in our network we are facing some of the problems that the Unified CPE intended to solve. Specifically, we will have DS-Lite, lw4o6 and public 4over6 in the operator network. The deployed HGWs may support DS-Lite only (RFC6204 compliant 'off-the-shelf' CPEs) or may be capable of all three. A individual HGW may also need to use different mechanisms at different points in its lifecycle (e.g. lw4o6 initially, but public 4over6 if the customer is located a full IPv4 address to use with non A+P compatible L4 protocols)

So, my questions here are whether there are other operators (or vendors) that see problems of this type in their networks, and is there enough interest to open up the unified CPE problem again?

Thanks,
Ian