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

"Yiu L. Lee" <yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com> Fri, 08 October 2010 18:37 UTC

Return-Path: <yiu_lee@cable.comcast.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 6CD133A6923; Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:37:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.053
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IO0pbKkUJMhR; Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:37:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com (PacdcIMO01.cable.comcast.com [24.40.8.145]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC3303A691E; Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:37:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([24.40.55.42]) by pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP with TLS id 5503620.97287388; Fri, 08 Oct 2010 14:36:28 -0400
Received: from PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com (24.40.15.86) by PACDCEXHUB01.cable.comcast.com (24.40.55.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.218.12; Fri, 8 Oct 2010 14:36:28 -0400
Received: from 69.241.25.0 ([69.241.25.0]) by PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com ([24.40.15.86]) via Exchange Front-End Server legacywebmail.comcast.com ([24.40.8.152]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Fri, 8 Oct 2010 18:36:24 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.26.0.100708
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 14:36:22 -0400
From: "Yiu L. Lee" <yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Message-ID: <C8D4DCE6.3EE95%yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com>
Thread-Topic: [v4tov6transition] [Softwires] ISP support of Native IPv6 across NAT44 CPEs -Proposed 6a44 Specification
Thread-Index: ActnF7R6jvgfJyrK10S6cPP1kINWwg==
In-Reply-To: <4CAE4E08.7050607@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: 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.

Cheers,
Yiu


On 10/7/10 6:47 PM, "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> 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?
>>    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-troan-multihoming-without-nat66-01
>>    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