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

"Yiu L. Lee" <> Fri, 08 October 2010 18:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CD133A6923; Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:37:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.053
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.053 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.343, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IO0pbKkUJMhR; Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:37:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC3303A691E; Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:37:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP with TLS id 5503620.97287388; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 14:36:28 -0400
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Fri, 8 Oct 2010 14:36:28 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) via Exchange Front-End Server ([]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Fri, 8 Oct 2010 18:36:24 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 14:36:22 -0400
From: "Yiu L. Lee" <>
To: Brian E Carpenter <>, Ole Troan <>
Message-ID: <>
Thread-Topic: [v4tov6transition] [Softwires] ISP support of Native IPv6 across NAT44 CPEs -Proposed 6a44 Specification
Thread-Index: ActnF7R6jvgfJyrK10S6cPP1kINWwg==
In-Reply-To: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Softwires <>,
Subject: Re: [v4tov6transition] [Softwires] ISP support of Native IPv6 across NAT44 CPEs -Proposed 6a44 Specification
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 18:37:36 -0000

Hi Brian,

I think this is all relative. I discussed internally about software
download. Their answer to me is "BIG NO". Reason is SP must run QA tests for
every possible OS/patches combination. Worst is we need to redo this again
when a new patch/upgrade is released. This is far costly than you can
imagine (way more than the $80 new CPE). In the end, I would vote for the
dongle based over host based anytime.

Is dongle more viable option than new CPE? I think this is the real debate.


On 10/7/10 6:47 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <> wrote:

> Ole,
>> I really liked the dongle idea by the way.
> I'm not convinced. If people are willing to buy such a thing,
> and if you are correct about $80 IPv6-enabled CPEs, I think the
> latter will win.
> So the real question for me is whether a $0 dollar download will beat
> an $80 purchase. Predicting customer bahaviour is hard.
> IMHO, we can put both on the market and see what happens.
> Regards
>    Brian
> On 2010-10-08 08:28, Ole Troan wrote:
>> Remi,
>> [...]
>>> ISPs that aren't concerned with what their customer would like to have will
>>> eventually face competition.
>> we are in complete agreement of the end goal. it is just how we get there...
>>> A key point is that supporting 6a44 is very inexpensive compared to other
>>> supports they have to envisage.
>>> Yet, as Yiu says, this still depends on which hosts will support 6a44.
>>> My personal hope is that we will soon see trials, including with mobile
>>> phones.  
>> issues I have with host tunneling:
>>  - how to communicate with native IPv6 nodes on the same network?
>>  - how to communicate to another 6a44 host on a different link in the same
>> home?
>>  - do you need non-congruent topology multi-homing policy?
>>    how do you distribute that policy when you don't have a on-link router?
>>  - a general unease that now every host is supposed to have a "VPN"
>> connection?
>>    how do I configure my own firewall and other network border policy?
>> how much would a new CPE cost the customer? 80USD? that's only 5 pints of
>> beer (if bought in Norway.)
>> I really liked the dongle idea by the way. perhaps with a L2TP LAC.
>> cheers,
>> Ole