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

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Thu, 07 October 2010 13:44 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 AFE353A6FC3; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 06:44:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.427
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.427 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.128, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 wnVXYYIA+OCN; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 06:44:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ew0-f44.google.com (mail-ew0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D1143A6F33; Thu, 7 Oct 2010 06:44:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ewy21 with SMTP id 21so268526ewy.31 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 07 Oct 2010 06:45:44 -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=hBNX4ywrrrxkuc4depmx7NMZV71ML3XwwDbNBCE77Xg=; b=BZcV5A7PLvTD1564GdT66PQn3oVbkLOir7wci0Fxwhs7ZXOxoRfkiW/UcfwurWNqFG 8tPcjGjHqClLV/Nq9TMrIZNosG1Lh1fSwrY+vRGxXz7J2BhB1dGY5aDmP3597FjM6/G6 rqMq6UJNjCN1Jb3/nIdHt32hvvwLXAbTtw1U0=
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=Sro2sT1wz3+aWhDgMrfuqEVJcF//ZVk3edtuS89QGy3hNVdmxcOYrW0mStAbFhS9Cz t93qRzDnE83lsnLOcxM+/nA0htIsr3MRs4hPgAcp1ghjNhvB0kBxHPAbnV/ffbmWRf7F ccKFkYr5vISvLPW8KgWzOl/T/CY8YZM64Gn74=
Received: by 10.213.113.147 with SMTP id a19mr1588567ebq.24.1286459143888; Thu, 07 Oct 2010 06:45:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams3-vpn-dhcp4939.cisco.com (64-103-25-233.cisco.com [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v8sm3474161eeh.20.2010.10.07.06.45.40 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 07 Oct 2010 06:45:41 -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: <FC864BDE-D5C7-4EEF-AE66-18AF523CDB67@free.fr>
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 15:45:37 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8F8FE644-4E46-4579-8D77-9C5613F6419E@employees.org>
References: <C8D29306.3EDBD%yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com> <FC864BDE-D5C7-4EEF-AE66-18AF523CDB67@free.fr>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9mi_Despr=E9s?= <remi.despres@free.fr>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)
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 13:44:43 -0000

>> 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