Re: [Softwires] ISP support of Native IPv6 across NAT44 CPEs

Agree because 6a44 address schema won't generate a prefix shorter than /64.
Let's put the technology aside. The ultimate question is: "Will O/S vendors
be willing to consider to implement another tunnel protocol on the host?"

On 10/6/10 6:10 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2010-10-06 19:57, Ole Troan wrote:
>> Brian,
>> 
>>>> Draft-despres-softwire-6a44-00, coauthored with Brian and Sheng, has just
>>>> been posted (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-despres-softwire-6a44-00).
>>>> It describes a solution for ISPs to offer native IPv6 across IPv4-only CPEs
>>>> (NAT44 CPEs).
>>>> 
>>>> It results from convergence discussion between authors of
>>>> draft-carpenter-6man-sample-00 and draft-despres-softwire-6rdplus-00,
>>>> taking into account comments made by authors of
>>>> draft-lee-softwire-6rd-udp-01, and those made other Softwire WG
>>>> participants since IETF 78.
>>>> 
>>>> It is submitted to become, after discussion in the WG, a Softwire I-D.
>>> By the way, we do discuss in the draft why it's a useful alternative to
>>> both tunnel brokers (such as Hexago and SixXs) or Teredo. We don't
>>> explicitly discuss why we think it's also a useful alternative to an L2TP
>>> solution, but the arguments are, I think, similar to those for the tunnel
>>> brokers (apart from our "hobbyist" comment).
>> 
>> perhaps you could also add some deployment considerations with regards to
>> host tunneling versus "network" tunneling?
> 
> OK, if there is enough interest to continue this work. Of course, in the
> context of legacy CPE, there is no alternative to host tunnels.
> (Except for the idea in draft-lee-softwire-6rd-udp of a tiny
> relay plugged into the customer LAN.)
> 
>      Brian
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> Softwires@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

Re: [Softwires] ISP support of Native IPv6 across NAT44 CPEs - Proposed 6a44 Specification