Re: [Softwires] 464XLAT - clarification? - relationship with 4rd-U

[Cameron Byrne <[e-mail]>]

On Oct 31, 2011 6:19 AM, "Rémi Després" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> Le 31 oct. 2011 à 14:09, Cameron Byrne a écrit :
>
>>
>> On Oct 31, 2011 2:25 AM, "Rémi Després" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi Masataka-san,
>> >
>> > 1.
>> > Thank you for sharing your interesting experience with the JPIX trial
service based on 464XLAT.
>> > Could you, for clarification, describe in more details formats of XLAT
prefixes in this trial?
>> >
>> > 2.
>> > Objectives of 464XLAT and 4rd-U look very similar (ref
draft-despres-softwire-4rd-u-01).
>> >
>> > Indeed:
>> > - Both use "DHCPv6 prefix delegation or another method" to inform
CLAT/CEs of their IPv6 prefixes.
>> > - Both "can implement traffic engineering based on IPv4 source address
and IPv4 destination address" (a feature that, as noted in your draft, is
missing in encapsulation).
>> >
>> > OTOH, unless I miss something, 464XLAT doesn't provide incoming
connectivity of CLATs in case of shared IPv4 addresses (while 4rd-U does
provide it to CEs). In this respect 4rd-U seems functionally more complete.
>> >
>> > Thoughts?
>> >
>>
>> The difference, imho, is stateful vs stateless.
>>
>> Many operators like myself do not have enough ipv4 addresses to
incrementally grow with a stateless solution.
>
> Sharing the orders of magnitude you have to face would help to appreciate
this constraint (reminding that hosts that are dual-stack don't need as
many IPv4 ports as others).
>

I believe the draft is addressing the scenario where the host and access
network are NOT dual stack due to address constraints.

For my use-case, without exposing my own forecasts, you can probably google
for mobile device growth to understand my growth magitude, regarding
available address space ...consider it non-existent within less than 12
months... to the point that adding new stores of ipv4 address is not a
feasible input to strategic planning. Imho, I simply do not believe there
is any *strategic* value in stateless solutions.

Yes, if we completely reinvented the service to use a scheme of stateless
address sharing there may be a path, but you cannot get there from here...
at least not in my case.

I believe we have discussed this before.  I hope my thoughts clarified your
question regarding the draft.

Cb

>> It is not possible to renumber the existing network and flash everyone
into a stateless solution, so I require a more scalable solution
...starting with very few address.
>>
>> Also, given the very small amount of existing ipv4, the per port
allocations of a stateless solution are not acceptable for me.
>
> Same point as above.
>
> Regards,
> RD
>
>
>
>
>> Others may have different starting positions therefore may find
stateless helpful.
>>
>> Cb
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > RD
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Le 27 oct. 2011 à 07:44, MAWATARI Masataka a écrit :
>> >
>> > > Greetings Alain-san,
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Please let me make a presentation at IETF 82 Meeting.
>> > > I would like to introduce the following draft as a v4->v6->v4
>> > > translation experience in softwire working group.
>> > >
>> > > ---
>> > > Topic: "464XLAT: Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation"
>> > > Draft name: draft-mawatari-softwire-464xlat-01
>> > > Time needed: 5-10minutes
>> > > Presenter's name: Masataka Mawatari
>> > > ---
>> > >
>> > > This is a simple technique to provide IPv4 access service across
>> > > IPv6 network just by using twice IPv4/IPv6 translation standardized
>> > > in [RFC6145] and [RFC6146].
>> > >
>> > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mawatari-softwire-464xlat
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Regards,
>> > > Masataka MAWATARI
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > * On Wed, 26 Oct 2011 18:22:04 +0200
>> > > * Remi Despres <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Hi Alain,
>> > >>
>> > >> Can you please schedule a time slot for a 4rd-U presentation:
>> > >>
>> > >> Title        : A Unified stateless solution for IPv4 residual
Deployments (4rd-U)
>> > >> Document: draft-despres-softwire-4rd-u-01
>> > >> Duration: 20 min (incl questions, expected to be numerous)
>> > >>
>> > >> Thanks.
>> > >> RD
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Japan Internet Exchange
>> > > MAWATARI Masataka <[e-mail]>
>> > > tel:[phone]
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Softwires mailing list
>> > > [e-mail]
>> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Softwires mailing list
>> > [e-mail]
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>
>