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

"Yiu L. Lee" <yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com> Thu, 07 October 2010 13:53 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 CFB163A7116; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 06:53:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -103.588
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.588 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.508, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 T8eQ2iOANuBV; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 06:53:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com (PacdcIMO01.cable.comcast.com [24.40.8.145]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2754C3A702C; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 06:53:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([24.40.55.41]) by pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP with TLS id 5503620.96848679; Thu, 07 Oct 2010 09:53:57 -0400
Received: from PACDCEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com (24.40.15.86) by PACDCEXHUB02.cable.comcast.com (24.40.55.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.218.12; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 09:53:57 -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 ; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 13:53:55 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.26.0.100708
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 09:53:51 -0400
From: "Yiu L. Lee" <yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, =?ISO-8859-1?B?UultaQ==?= =?ISO-8859-1?B?IERlc3By6XM=?= <remi.despres@free.fr>
Message-ID: <C8D3492F.3EDF1%yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com>
Thread-Topic: [v4tov6transition] [Softwires] ISP support of Native IPv6 across NAT44 CPEs -Proposed 6a44 Specification
Thread-Index: ActmJxJ7cYDZ9a9HT0C97JM8wUGJ+g==
In-Reply-To: <8F8FE644-4E46-4579-8D77-9C5613F6419E@employees.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
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: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 13:53:01 -0000

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