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

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Thu, 21 August 2014 09:41 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD2061A0103 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 02:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2059ehK--TK3 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 02:41:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias243.francetelecom.com [80.12.204.243]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CF7B1A00F0 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 02:41:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfeda08.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.201]) by omfeda14.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id AE28A2AC4F1; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:41:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown [10.114.31.30]) by omfeda08.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 8DEC6384061; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:41:48 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([169.254.2.234]) by OPEXCLILH02.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([10.114.31.30]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:41:48 +0200
From: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
To: "ian.farrer@telekom.de" <ian.farrer@telekom.de>, "softwires@ietf.org" <softwires@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Softwires] Is there any intest in re-visiting the Unified CPE Problem?
Thread-Index: Ac+8cRnrFBk6a2GxTpOl12WogZdkugAspGfQ
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 09:41:48 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330052293@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <8A1B81989BCFAE44A22B2B86BF2B76318AE0634039@HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM>
In-Reply-To: <8A1B81989BCFAE44A22B2B86BF2B76318AE0634039@HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.168.234.1]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330052293OPEXCLILM23corpor_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 6.0.3.2322014, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409, Antispam-Data: 2014.6.25.220919
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/dmGfSvBepO1dhWmh0VQsqKIfAi4
Cc: "draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Is there any intest in re-visiting the Unified CPE Problem?
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 21 Aug 2014 09:41:53 -0000

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:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de ian.farrer@telekom.de
Envoyé : mercredi 20 août 2014 14:20
À : softwires@ietf.org
Cc : draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe@tools.ietf.org
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