Re: [Softwires] Questions on: draft-cui-softwire-host-4over6

Yong Cui <yong@csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn> Thu, 31 March 2011 22:08 UTC

Return-Path: <yong@csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn>
X-Original-To: softwires@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E235F28C0EC for <softwires@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:08:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8zFkoDajxzXQ for <softwires@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:08:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.jzland.com (unknown [211.151.89.50]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 763A03A6BC0 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Mar 2011 15:08:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.jzland.com (EMOS V1.4 (Postfix)) with ESMTP id 4CAB230B0B6C; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 05:55:40 +0800 (CST)
X-DSPAM-Result: Whitelisted
X-DSPAM-Processed: Fri Apr 1 05:55:40 2011
X-DSPAM-Confidence: 0.9899
X-DSPAM-Probability: 0.0000
X-DSPAM-Signature: 1,4d94f85c39701880510319
X-DSPAM-Factors: 27, From+Ole, 0.01000, could, 0.01000, but, 0.01000, >cheers, 0.01000, >>>+cheers, 0.01000, e, 0.01000, e, 0.01000, Date*Apr, 0.01000, that+dslite, 0.01000, Date*01+Apr, 0.01000, snoop, 0.01000, >>>>+the, 0.01000, an, 0.01000, softwire, 0.01000, softwire, 0.01000, org, 0.01000, org, 0.01000, refresh+this, 0.01000, g+you, 0.01000, from, 0.01000, since+we, 0.01000, and+signalling, 0.01000, classify, 0.01000, But, 0.01000, tunnels+in, 0.01000, benefits, 0.01000, Thread-Topic*Questions, 0.01000
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jzland.com
Received: from mail.jzland.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.jzland.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Dy+2faNs0YBj; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 05:55:39 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [10.224.101.74] (unknown [83.111.219.33]) by mail.jzland.com (EMOS V1.4 (Postfix)) with ESMTPA id 1E40430B0B63; Fri, 1 Apr 2011 05:55:34 +0800 (CST)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.0.0.100825
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2011 05:55:31 +0800
From: Yong Cui <yong@csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, "Lee, Yiu" <Yiu_Lee@Cable.Comcast.com>
Message-ID: <C9BB180B.60B2%yong@csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn>
Thread-Topic: [Softwires] Questions on: draft-cui-softwire-host-4over6
In-Reply-To: <54325076-BEF3-4BE9-AE15-85004C85F5C0@employees.org>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Cc: "softwires@ietf.org list" <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Questions on: draft-cui-softwire-host-4over6
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 31 Mar 2011 22:08:52 -0000

Ole, 

The IPv4/IPv6 address mapping is stateful, which is the almost same as
DS-Lite does on address/port mapping, but simpler (i.e. Without port
mapping). 

Although L3TP is an important tunneling method, do you think IP-IP tunnels
are still widely used, including softwire mesh, DS-Lite, 6RD...? In order
to keep the simplicity, we really hope to use IP-IP tunnels in the
networks.

Yong

-----Original Message-----
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 10:44:36 +0200
To: "Lee, Yiu" <Yiu_Lee@Cable.Comcast.com>
Cc: "softwires@ietf.org list" <softwires@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Questions on: draft-cui-softwire-host-4over6

>Yiu,
>
>> Ok. I agree with your definition. How about I rephrase it that dslite
>>and
>> 4over6 don't require control channel. RFC5571 requires control channel.
>> Can we agree that control channel requires extra overhead?
>
>absolutely. both encapsulation and signalling overhead.
>
>that does come with some benefits though, e.g. you can do authentication
>and so on.
>
>cheers,
>Ole
>
>>> Yiu,
>>> 
>>>> The way to set up the tunnel is similar to ds-lite. The CPE will learn
>>>> the
>>>> TC's v6 address, then encap v4 packets into v6 to the TC. To create
>>>>the
>>>> v4-v6 mapping in the TC's routing table. This could be done by the TC
>>>>to
>>>> look at the dhcp message or by keepalive packets from the cpe. We
>>>> haven't
>>>> decided which way is preferred. But the tunnel itself is stateless.
>>> 
>>> since we have tended to classify mechanisms into 'stateless' and
>>> 'stateful'. I think we need a common understanding of what mean by
>>>these
>>> terms.
>>> 
>>> simply stated, if the mechanism scales by the number of
>>> subscribers/tunnels then it is stateful. if it scales by the amount of
>>> packets/traffic then it is stateless.
>>> 
>>> if you agree with that definition I would think 4over6 is stateful,
>>>since
>>> it suggests to integrate the tunnel state into the RIB. i.e. you
>>>allocate
>>> a piece of memory per subscriber and you have to snoop on DHCP messages
>>> to refresh this state.
>>> 
>>> cheers,
>>> Ole
>> 
>
>_______________________________________________
>Softwires mailing list
>Softwires@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires