Re: [v4v6interim] Comparison document

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Fri, 19 September 2008 21:57 UTC

Return-Path: <v4v6interim-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: v4v6interim-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-v4v6interim-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B11B3A688B; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 14:57:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: v4v6interim@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v4v6interim@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 571AA3A6885 for <v4v6interim@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 14:56:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.037
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.037 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.562, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 BqgkdYiXjkFU for <v4v6interim@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 14:56:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-6.cisco.com (sj-iport-6.cisco.com [171.71.176.117]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ED743A6826 for <v4v6interim@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 14:56:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,433,1217808000"; d="scan'208";a="158940681"
Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Sep 2008 21:56:50 +0000
Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m8JLuo4q017184; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 14:56:50 -0700
Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.194]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m8JLuoGX007669; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 21:56:50 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: 'Mikael Lind' <mikael.lind@hexago.com>, v4v6interim@ietf.org
References: <079901c91813$31733990$b3736b80@cisco.com> <004301c91a9e$edfa0430$c9ee0c90$@lind@hexago.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 14:56:49 -0700
Message-ID: <053d01c91aa2$9e7a0230$c2f0200a@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
Thread-Index: AckYEzFBfUvC/LZVRbWzVgio52KMVAChiCzgAAGx0CA=
In-Reply-To: <004301c91a9e$edfa0430$c9ee0c90$@lind@hexago.com>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2237; t=1221861410; x=1222725410; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Dan=20Wing=22=20<dwing@cisco.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[v4v6interim]=20Comparison=20document |Sender:=20; bh=NrgvIsQzjmH6AcZHnnFoQsZ6KAHiN/PgmJbzt0GhlY0=; b=JA0KA5wl9rglaAbr6czRbkdK218NlwunDd5KMT8sXrp2GJFO5gjt/2muyM IWUBCcYHn7eEYZvMaCTzKsy0n7LO1+SaWzoyWP/kYN3/k8yUytYsg7xhsPPS tPIMt+CoD+;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; );
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 14:57:39 -0700
Subject: Re: [v4v6interim] Comparison document
X-BeenThere: v4v6interim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of coexistence topics for the 01-Oct-2008 v4-v6 coexistence interim meeting <v4v6interim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim>, <mailto:v4v6interim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/v4v6interim>
List-Post: <mailto:v4v6interim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v4v6interim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim>, <mailto:v4v6interim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: v4v6interim-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: v4v6interim-bounces@ietf.org

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mikael Lind [mailto:mikael.lind@hexago.com] 
> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2008 2:30 PM
> To: 'Dan Wing'; v4v6interim@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [v4v6interim] Comparison document
> 
> 3.1.2 describes the two proposals Dual-stack lite and SNAT as 
> more or less
> the same. Even if there is discussion about merging them I 
> still think it
> would be worth pointing out in the document that there is a 
> big difference
> between the two proposals. 
> DS-lite doesn't require a tunnel to be set up in order to 
> function as it
> keeps the IPv6 source address as part of the NAT state, much 
> like a NAT-PT.
> In the case of SNAT there has to exist a tunnel per user 
> before traffic is
> sent as tunnelling and NAT are more or less separate. 

The 3 authors of SNAT and DS-Lite all told me to collapse the
text of their proposals because they are consolidating the two
proposals.

SNAT uses the tunnel identifier to distinguish each subscriber;
DS-Lite uses the IPv6 address to distinguish each subscriber.  
This is a pretty minor distinction in the overall scheme of
things.   In both cases, the concentration endpoint must be
configured (or otherwise learned, e.g., via a DHCP option)
and in both cases the NAT44 function needs to differentiate
each subscriber (such as VLANs, tunnel ID, or IPv6 
interface) so that subscribers can be given overlapping
IPv4 addresses.

-d


> -Mikael
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: v4v6interim-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v4v6interim-
> > bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dan Wing
> > Sent: September 16, 2008 11:45
> > To: v4v6interim@ietf.org
> > Subject: [v4v6interim] Comparison document
> > 
> > We just submitted "A Comparison of Proposals to Replace 
> NAT-PT", which
> > attempts to summarize and compare APB-Revised, Dual-Stack 
> Lite, NAT444,
> > IVI,
> > NAT6, NAT64, NAT-PT, and sNAT-PT.
> > 
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wing-nat-pt-replacement-
> > comparison-0
> > 0.txt
> > 
> > -d
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > v4v6interim mailing list
> > v4v6interim@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim
> 

_______________________________________________
v4v6interim mailing list
v4v6interim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim