Re: [Softwires] comments on draft-carpenter-softwire-sample-00

On 9/28/10 4:09 AM, Yiu L. Lee wrote:
> Hi Washam,
> 
> Don't forget there are also Softwire Hub-and-Spoke (L2TPv2 based)  and 6rd+.
> So far, we don't hear much response to support this work in the operator's
> community.

I know of more than one L2TPv2 based softwire deployments active today.
A new one is getting ready to go online soon as well (sorry, not my
place to spill the beans on who).

Given existing deployment of L2TP and TSP, I still find it hard to see
why another stateful point-to-point tunnel is really necessary at this
stage of the game.

- Mark

> 
> Regards,
> Yiu
> 
> 
> On 9/27/10 9:49 PM, "WashamFan" <Washam.Fan@huaweisymantec.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> Please see inline.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
>> Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 4:17 am
>> Subject: Re: [Softwires] comments on draft-carpenter-softwire-sample-00
>> To: WashamFan <Washam.Fan@huaweisymantec.com>
>> Cc: softwires@ietf.org
>>
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>  
>>>  On 2010-09-27 21:05, WashamFan wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> It says,
>>>>
>>>>    The SAMPLE server will act as an IPv6 router.  In the simplest case,
>>>>    it will forward all IPv6 packets to a default route, except those
>>>>    whose destination address lies within the PSAMPLE prefix, which
>>> will
>>>>    be encapsulated and sent towards the host (CPE) and port
>>> indicated by
>>>>    the V4ADDR and PN values.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think it is not appropriate to assume NAT traversal without
>>>> relay can be always successful.
>>>  
>>>  I don't understand your comment. If you have a NAT that you cannot
>>>  traverse with UDP, you have many other problems, not just a lack
>>>  of IPv6 connectivity.
>>
>> I misunderstood. I thought the text implies direct tunnels established
>> instead of hairpinning via SAMPLE server when SAMPLE client to
>> SAMPLE client communication occurs .
>>
>>>> Hairpinning might be always used
>>>> for simplicity.
>>>  
>>>  Yes, that is the SAMPLE model. And it's a discussion for the
>>>  community whether or not this is acceptable.
>>>  
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to know the status of the draft, is the WG pursuing this
>>>> work?
>>>  
>>>  There are three drafts aiming at the same problem, SAMPLE,
>>>  draft-lee-softwire-6rd-udp, and draft-despres-softwire-6rdplus.
>>>  Please hold your breath, there's hope of a joint proposal
>>>  from several authors within a few days.
>>
>> Is it possible to combine all these efforts? I see 2 major
>> difference between  draft-carpenter-softwire-sample-00
>> and draft-lee-softwire-6rd-udp-02 at least:
>>
>> 1. According to the IPv6 address assignment, SAMPLE
>> is  to connect isolated IPv6 hosts but 6rd-udp is to connect
>> both isolated IPv6 hosts and LANs.
>>
>> 2. They are different in terms of IPv6 address assignment
>> procedure. SAMPLE uses ND but 6rd-udp might use RADIUS,
>> let's say.
>>
>> Personally, I think it is meaningful to work on tunneling
>> IPv6 traversing NAT, but I think we should justify the work
>> by clarifying how bad Teredo did the job before we reinvent
>> the wheel.
>>
>> THanks,
>> washam
>>
>>
>>>     Brian
>>>  
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> 