Re: [v4tov6transition] [Softwires] ISP support of Native IPv6 across NAT44 CPEs - Proposed 6a44 Specification

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Wed, 06 October 2010 06:56 UTC

Return-Path: <ichiroumakino@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v4tov6transition@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v4tov6transition@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DDB33A70E0; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 23:56:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.576
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.576 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.023, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 JayH97DrB9sn; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 23:56:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9D8B3A70E5; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 23:56:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by eyd10 with SMTP id 10so3616757eyd.31 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 23:57:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:subject:mime-version :content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=iwUXuHxCDIGWUzmZWnANHtTpzj7u16wieVMjrWJu0Qo=; b=QHPZrAaQ7d08O2KmhRyc8jO3ElsmgSUbRcoaQ6aqKc9dp91lDbg9IKg/xiv6Ky2XTe cMsBX8QP2M2FSl52m5Gz6r9oufs/sr4s8CJfqvQvJrj7c452kngguoivKVBz/NIEIzX3 5PhoSAPrULWUijorbl3sKyMWqATcc3CUxCuHU=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=i8szBtmyLZCsYhmAoe/tCNd28aTEkAEWACg+Zu76CiKkCxtD/APzeDpIXgq665o1GR /W+iWMs18ZEepZOOevElhg5exKcGH3F1MI4EWjpH0jZltu9St8rNLaaZjzR9PSIH37Nu AvPDQeCWN9uMtpMs8XisdKUCuIH7/AKbplfKw=
Received: by 10.213.63.142 with SMTP id b14mr9209383ebi.33.1286348261416; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 23:57:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-osl-vl300-64-103-53-102.cisco.com (dhcp-osl-vl300-64-103-53-102.cisco.com [64.103.53.102]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z55sm932796eeh.21.2010.10.05.23.57.39 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 05 Oct 2010 23:57:40 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Ole Troan <ichiroumakino@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <4CAB8F97.90501@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 08:57:35 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B8BAD5B0-9C9B-475E-BF53-7DF76ABF5213@employees.org>
References: <31672657-0CCB-4C2B-B44A-AEE73B588960@free.fr> <4CAB8F97.90501@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
Cc: Softwires <softwires@ietf.org>, v4tov6transition@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v4tov6transition] [Softwires] ISP support of Native IPv6 across NAT44 CPEs - Proposed 6a44 Specification
X-BeenThere: v4tov6transition@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <v4tov6transition.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4tov6transition>, <mailto:v4tov6transition-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v4tov6transition>
List-Post: <mailto:v4tov6transition@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v4tov6transition-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4tov6transition>, <mailto:v4tov6transition-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 06:56:44 -0000

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?

cheers,
Ole