Re: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan

Ole Trøan <> Tue, 07 February 2012 16:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C542621F85F6 for <>; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 08:02:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.299
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id u2-X1hp2pvZC for <>; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 08:02:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFE3A21F85FC for <>; Tue, 7 Feb 2012 08:02:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by werm10 with SMTP id m10so6341330wer.31 for <>; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 08:02:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=sender:subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=GrC9bJ35FXnOY2V7l1+maU4T4TKfuXyhJ29QT/gdvtQ=; b=fEDG0wZYcE/+AZqFQzvPcJkd+6zjeyIwc05IS+HLQDpHt1ekMaPZHfvGABF8nQo4xi JIe7+vTcRsidP+X4Lu9cjzl+Pg5xbWml6YC+z5XL94MuG7K6ZUkofQdb1EQcoYWk+de/ fquT5c2humx4IHQkxSpSFNfyYtl2ljn1i47TM=
Received: by with SMTP id w52mr5162657wei.57.1328630551979; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 08:02:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPS id t15sm32997974wiv.6.2012. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 07 Feb 2012 08:02:31 -0800 (PST)
Sender: Ole Troan <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Ole Trøan <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:02:26 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: Cameron Byrne <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Stateless implementation plan
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:02:33 -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?

there is a new draft on MAP deployment in the works. should be out any day now.

> 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. 

it is certainly simpler if you have some available IPv4 address space to start with.
e.g. with a /14 of IPv4 space, you'll get 16 million subs for a sharing ratio of 64. or a /16 with a sharing ratio of 256 .

> What would the deployment process be for an address exhausted network of 10 million subs with 10% annual growth be? 

if you have zero IPv4 addresses left to play with. you can convert a subscriber at a time. then for every subscriber converted, you'd get sharing-ratio-1 IPv4 addresses reclaimed, that you can do the same with.