Re: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan

"Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com> Tue, 07 February 2012 17:23 UTC

Return-Path: <rajiva@cisco.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 A4AB921F87FB for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 09:23:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.732
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.732 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.867, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 FCGYIKfypl94 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 09:23:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1FE421F87F7 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 09:23:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=rajiva@cisco.com; l=1940; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1328635420; x=1329845020; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to; bh=zSP4KIF+GCcXTVriMLhyPOv2J5kvt78m6w7mTUTo108=; b=O1m2Po0yt6+Eqo4bUryMPjVSy6xiW45OLemJhTb/sukF7eVJ+zho5hiA 3/qzEXWnJBMPP4CaLRkATWMln8x0POgG1kmT07bbIqzUXs61rbtiUfoos GcVHQIFwnZwzehoj/LOskURf6iMmUFQNEBfFIed3BqjYcL1r0cYh3Q6lh o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAJBdMU+tJXG8/2dsb2JhbABCr1qBBYFyAQEBBBIBHQpLBAIBCA4DBAEBCwYXAQYBRQkIAQEEARIIEweiUQGXHYs1KzUMAgyEJoJ2YwSIRp9i
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,378,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="57037764"
Received: from rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com ([173.37.113.188]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Feb 2012 17:23:39 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-101.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-101.cisco.com [72.163.62.138]) by rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q17HNcQf032237; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 17:23:38 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-111.cisco.com ([72.163.62.153]) by xbh-rcd-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 7 Feb 2012 11:23:38 -0600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 11:23:37 -0600
Message-ID: <067E6CE33034954AAC05C9EC85E2577C07508C4E@XMB-RCD-111.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGS7TBhUVJjwjqMibXJRo1Y=F4UKcDmYXfh-9OUDe=Me0w@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan
Thread-Index: AczlqfsEjHNMWyqaSWeT02NZZZdXWAACuHHg
References: <CAD6AjGTfQ4akndGG3C9k7SZU=4BpuA4qrorg1FeV5u8wEJRdaA@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGS7TBhUVJjwjqMibXJRo1Y=F4UKcDmYXfh-9OUDe=Me0w@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
To: "Cameron Byrne" <cb.list6@gmail.com>, <softwires@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Feb 2012 17:23:38.0744 (UTC) FILETIME=[3AF24F80:01CCE5BD]
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: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:23:47 -0000

Hi Cameron,

Good question. Yes, MAP is deployable even in that case (though the
mileage may vary). One deployment approach suggested below.

What's really interesting is that MAP-T CE function (with sharing
ratio=1, thereby disabling NAT44 on CE) could get us quite comparable to
the CLAT function, and still allowing to use the PLAT device for
stateful NAT64. This flexibility got be highlighted, IMO.

Cheers,
Rajiv

PS: One of many deployment approaches could be to 
	- take one public IPv4 address (or prefix) out of the pool 
	assigned to CGN, and use it in MAP as the starting point
	- exclude that IPv4 address (or prefix) from CGN
	- share that IPv4 address (or prefix) among 2^n subscribers
	using MAP

Needless to say that this would be done on a per PDN GW basis. The above
approach takes quite a simplistic view, suffice to say, and we could
come up with more approaches. I bet that you already thought through
most of this already.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: softwires-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org]
On
> Behalf Of Cameron Byrne
> Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 10:06 AM
> To: softwires@ietf.org
> Subject: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan
> 
> Are the map and 4rd solutions deployable for existing networks that do
not
> have reserves  of ipv4 ?  My assumption is that these solutions target
existing
> networks that have meaningful growth and they need a v6 solution.
> 
> If yes, how? Any pointers within the reams of drafts I should look
for?
> 
> In my brief and simple skimming, it appears to me that setting up one
of these
> solutions would require me to collapse my existing network to harvest
back the
> addresses so that they may be redeployed in map.
> 
> What would the deployment process be for an address exhausted network
of 10
> million subs with 10% annual growth be?
> 
> 
> 
> Cb