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

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Fri, 08 October 2010 00:06 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@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 364A83A6F1A; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 17:06:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.37
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.37 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.229, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 Hjkn0+NZRadC; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 17:06:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE9D73A6E94; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 17:06:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qyk1 with SMTP id 1so117174qyk.10 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 07 Oct 2010 17:07:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4NVvlvpDBsZGP9v7z80wJN+TLJf1eja2iwPytPH8lIw=; b=RdXLbfhowAQRHGCeJuYBCuouAlqGFCVGjtgGy2JYf7HXvYkfnEWuSXu824iwlQOo2R VbWPqiGV0zao7aicdJensaaIL5BlRX/Y8xZJCGYJxpeHxsUHmILvI1aSzmlWtur/dE01 Z3b7HA+orVh8UKsfh3pnqSdkR0wCPqy1xrtHk=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=hjypSoQr/9/JI5TwDz5H2LjM4eW4EY1mSIsDLiH/L7oUXvg+poeMiup+U9AAJKWiX6 hQNMLAwepKf1d57jaBLZCKt9oSS6ZLi9ntK2TYUc3pY/YUU5vnHizLbyAElIOj1zb8JX GSV/pCx5mvH78eTWfDJdFRyO65BZt3AZDksZI=
Received: by 10.229.222.200 with SMTP id ih8mr1312704qcb.266.1286496435515; Thu, 07 Oct 2010 17:07:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.1.1.4] ([121.98.142.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s34sm816806qcp.8.2010.10.07.17.07.10 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 07 Oct 2010 17:07:14 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4CAE60A8.4020206@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 13:07:04 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Yiu L. Lee" <yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com>
References: <C8D3492F.3EDF1%yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com>
In-Reply-To: <C8D3492F.3EDF1%yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Softwires <softwires@ietf.org>, "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, 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 00:06:14 -0000

> I can't say how bad operators want to support IPv6 over legacy CPEs. If
> there is demand. Can somebody (except me :-) ) speak it out?

Well, when we surveyed 31 ISPs for draft-ietf-v6ops-isp-scenarios,
we found "When asked which types of equipment are unable to support IPv6, the
most common answer was CPE (10 mentions)." That doesn't directly answer
your question, but it suggests the size of the problem.

Regards
   Brian Carpenter

On 2010-10-08 02:53, Yiu L. Lee wrote:
> Hi Ole,
> 
> I agree with you the host model isn't very attractive for average users. If
> IPv4 can get me to every site, why I want to install a software to bring me
> to the same set of sites over v6? 6rd is great tech, users don't need to do
> anything. The only drawback is users will have to change the CPE. For some
> operators, this may be a hurdle.
> 
> I can't say how bad operators want to support IPv6 over legacy CPEs. If
> there is demand. Can somebody (except me :-) ) speak it out?
> 
> Thanks,
> Yiu
> 
> 
> On 10/7/10 9:45 AM, "Ole Troan" <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
> 
>>>> This is an interesting idea, but I will argue this is as complex as L2TP
>>>> softwire. When Brian, Remi and I discussed, we would like to have a simple
>>>> and cost effective technology that could be deployed by SP w/o upgrading the
>>>> CPE.
>>> Indeed.
>>> We need some reliable and easily deployable solutions for IPv6 use to become
>>> widespread, including in hosts behind legacy CPEs.
>> why?
>>
>> my personal experience with host tunneling hasn't been great (ISATAP, Teredo,
>> 6to4, configured, L2TP). and do ISPs really have an interest in supporting
>> individual hosts? and be exposed to all of their peculiarities?
>>
>> it appears to me that we are filling in every possible square in the solution
>> matrix. just because it is possible doesn't mean that it is useful or
>> deployable...
>>
>> cheers,
>> Ole
> 
>