Re: [Softwires] WG last call on draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-01

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Peng,

I vote for having one single document which covers both shared and full IPv4 address. 

If you start for instance from draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite, what is needed is to add one sentence to say a full IPv4 address can be provisioned. Does this make draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite more complex? I don't think so.

I really think we need all to do an effort of rationalizing the solutions space. 

Cheers,
Med 

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : Peng Wu [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>Envoyé : jeudi 7 juin 2012 18:31
>À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP
>Cc : Yong Cui; [e-mail]
>Objet : Re: [Softwires] WG last call on 
>draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-01
>
>Med,
>
>From protocol level, the difference between public 4over6 and
>lightweight 4over6(b4-translated-ds-lite) lies in port-set support.
>The extra efforts of lw 4over6 are as follows: (1) port set support in
>DHCP provisioning; (2) NAT on the initiator side.(whose address pool
>is not a full address but only a port set)  (3) port-set supporting in
>the cocentrator's binding table.
>
>While we may cover public 4over6 by lightweight 4over6 with a special
>port set format (2^16 size) for (3), (1) and (2) brings quite
>significant changes to the intiator side. If I'm only a pb 4over6
>initiator, more typically a host initiator, all the complexity needed
>is to plant a CRA process on the host, which is basically an IPv4 &
>IPv6 socket function, to support DHCPv4-over-IPv6. The rest is already
>there: we don't need to modify DHCP client, and IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel is
>already supported in today's OS. No NAT is needed in host case, and
>full e2e transparency is guaranteed. If we support this by lw 4over6,
>we implemented extra complexity which is not needed at all by the
>initiator.
>
>We have deployement scenarios which probably don't require address
>sharing, such as CERNET, and I guess maybe the ISPs in USA also do not
>have an IPv4 address shortage problem?
>
>So, aside from the fact that the pb 4over6 draft starts earlier and
>its status has been a step furher, this is a problem of choice: do we
>want two clean, simple mechanisms, or one mechanism trying to be
>compatible with both.
>
>On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 9:11 PM,  <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I agree with Reinaldo.
>>
>> IMHO it makes sense to merge the two documents: either 
>draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6 be extended to cover 
>draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite or add one or two 
>sentences to draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite to 
>mention a non-shared IPv4 address may be assigned.
>>
>> Doing so would help to rationalize the solution space and 
>associated documents. We have the following main flavours:
>>
>> (1) Full stateful mode: DS-Lite
>> (2) Full stateless mode: MAP
>> (3) Per-customer state/binding mode: lw4o6 
>(draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite)
>>
>> All the three modes must support the ability to assign a 
>full IPv4 address.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Med
>>
>>>-----Message d'origine-----
>>>De : [e-mail]
>>>[mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Reinaldo Penno
>>>Envoyé : lundi 28 mai 2012 07:53
>>>À : Sheng Jiang; Yong Cui; [e-mail]
>>>Objet : Re: [Softwires] WG last call on
>>>draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-01
>>>
>>>-1
>>>
>>>In which significant way this document is different from
>>>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-
>>>lite-06 ?
>>>
>>>We can insert one paragraph in the above draft and allow
>>>public IPs since
>>>NAT is optional. The two documents even use DHCPv4ov6 as 
>provisioning.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On 5/27/12 6:32 PM, "Sheng Jiang" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>The document looks mature for being advanced.
>>>>
>>>>Sheng Jiang
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: [e-mail]
>>>[mailto:[e-mail]] On
>>>>> Behalf Of Yong Cui
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:31 PM
>>>>> To: [e-mail]
>>>>> Cc: Yong Cui
>>>>> Subject: [Softwires] WG last call on
>>>draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-
>>>>> 01
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi folks,
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a wg last call on draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-01.
>>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6/
>>>>>
>>>>> As usual, please send editorial comments to the authors and
>>>>> substantive comments to the mailing list.
>>>>>
>>>>> This wg last call will end on 2012 June 10 at 12pm EDT.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yong & Alain
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Softwires mailing list
>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>Softwires mailing list
>>>>[e-mail]
>>>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Softwires mailing list
>>>[e-mail]
>>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Softwires mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>