[Softwires] Stateless implementation plan

Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com> Tue, 07 February 2012 15:05 UTC

Return-Path: <cb.list6@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF98921F87F7 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 07:05:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.422
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.422 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.176, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fnLAdNAve+pB for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 07:05:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pz0-f44.google.com (mail-pz0-f44.google.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BCBB21F87EC for <softwires@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 07:05:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by dakl33 with SMTP id l33so6691643dak.31 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 07:05:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=EOxDzS8c3X3+TWR+yE6CqPAE9/liSshaQd/TCKnR3LI=; b=aGBqyVU4CkEuWINRqGFWozSJ2D7mVDAQTW/NqCvLC94Ipt9G2k7HVlZF3s8HDanl7w 5bvQ0ky5c4YQxvGJqoTtyNotyduHuclzbFaGhFuHqfiIG9sXBNsX01bM6sTTVpP4W17D Hgan7tEJ0TyYJW177V5+c6wLd+p4tdssI3p5c=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id rh7mr15701701pbc.104.1328627142875; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 07:05:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 07:05:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 07:05:42 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGTfQ4akndGG3C9k7SZU=4BpuA4qrorg1FeV5u8wEJRdaA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAD6AjGTfQ4akndGG3C9k7SZU=4BpuA4qrorg1FeV5u8wEJRdaA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 07:05:42 -0800
Message-ID: <CAD6AjGS7TBhUVJjwjqMibXJRo1Y=F4UKcDmYXfh-9OUDe=Me0w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: softwires@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8ff2538ce3d9d704b8611cd3"
Subject: [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: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:05:46 -0000

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?