Re: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan

Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net> Wed, 08 February 2012 11:12 UTC

Return-Path: <despres.remi@laposte.net>
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 633EE21F8633 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 03:12:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.854
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.854 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.095, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 4uK50JhvhxrL for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 03:12:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp24.services.sfr.fr (smtp24.services.sfr.fr [93.17.128.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9543721F8630 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 03:12:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from filter.sfr.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by msfrf2403.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 69EE670004D9; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 12:12:18 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.0.21] (per92-10-88-166-221-144.fbx.proxad.net [88.166.221.144]) by msfrf2403.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 1571C7000440; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 12:12:18 +0100 (CET)
X-SFR-UUID: 20120208111218879.1571C7000440@msfrf2403.sfr.fr
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9mi_Despr=E9s?= <despres.remi@laposte.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAC8QAccDnsZuTgem4-cYnUM6yLSSXpu0f5tEgdnGUWXaQjuA4Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 12:12:17 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <112FA3FC-EA76-4F38-BBF5-BE6141689842@laposte.net>
References: <CAD6AjGTfQ4akndGG3C9k7SZU=4BpuA4qrorg1FeV5u8wEJRdaA@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGS7TBhUVJjwjqMibXJRo1Y=F4UKcDmYXfh-9OUDe=Me0w@mail.gmail.com> <CAC8QAccCa_6g-LQRvfx2MSNDFH09Vb_kjBHSVk6-5uiTUTYX_A@mail.gmail.com> <6DA169B8-57BC-4CCC-B8E1-25FBB9F9BD2A@laposte.net> <CAC8QAccDnsZuTgem4-cYnUM6yLSSXpu0f5tEgdnGUWXaQjuA4Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: sarikaya@ieee.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
X-sfr-mailing: LEGIT
Cc: softwires@ietf.org
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: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:12:20 -0000

Le 2012-02-08 à 12:04, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit :

> Hi Remi,
> 
> 4rd would be quite applicable for some UEs, e.g. mobile routers which
> are in charge of a 3G/4G uplink and manage several devices connected
> to them such as in vehicles.

Yes, I think so.

It remains to:
- finalize 4rd
- find mobile operators that understand the potential
- find mobile-OS vendors that support it
Not necessarily a long path IMHO (but not necessarily a fitness trail either).

Regards 
RD
 

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Behcet
> 
> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 3:23 AM, Rémi Després <despres.remi@laposte.net> wrote:
>> Hi Behcet,
>> 
>> Le 2012-02-08 à 09:46, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit :
>> 
>>> Hi Cameron,
>>> 4rd solution IMHO is more suitable for a fixed network. CPE in 4rd is
>>> not appropriate to be hosted in a UE.
>>> 
>>> I think your solution 464XLAT's mobile part is way better for your
>>> purposes. There you can put all your IPv4 resources on the PLAT box so
>>> that CLAT box is kept simpler.
>>> 
>>> In 4rd, CPEs have A+P and BR is kept "stateless" these are not so
>>> useful for your purposes, I think.
>> 
>> Note however that:
>> - 464XLAT doesn't support shared IPv4 addresses (while 4rd does)
>> - 4rd over 6rd can work, and therefore offer both IPv6 and shared-address IPv4 on an RFC1918 network, e.g. on a 3GPP IPv4 PDP (while 464XLAT cannot AFAIK).
>> 
>> Regards,
>> RD
>> 
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Behcet
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Softwires mailing list
>>>> Softwires@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Softwires mailing list
>>> Softwires@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires