Re: [v6ops] LISP support for draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-00

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>]

Hi Barbara,

Maybe I was not so clear in my explanation.

I’m not trying to “convert” this document into something related to 3GPP.

However, I think what is being done there is relevant if it can be uses here as well.

What I’m saying is that it makes sense to have a single transition mechanism (if it is possible, and actually IT IS with 464XLAT) in both kind of networks.

Moreover, we need to understand that broadband deployment (residential and SMEs) in the next few years will also have 3 scenarios in order to understand the CE needs:
1) 1 or more concurrent wireline links (same or different ISPs)
2) 1 or more concurrent LTE links where wireline is not possible (same or different ISPs)
3) A mix of 2 or more concurrent wireline + LTE links (same or different ISPs).

In my opinion, considering this, again it makes a lot of sense to share a transition mechanism that can do both in the same CPE, instead of a different one for each link.

If we agree on this perspective of what is going to happen, and we agree that clearly the IPv6 deployment in 3GPP is driven by 464XLAT, there is no surprise on what I’m saying.

Despite that, I think and it has been said by real operators in this list a few months ago, they actually use RFC7048 for their RFQs to vendors, and they need support of not just 6rd and DS-lite as we have today. Some of them mention specifically lw4o6, 464XLAT and MAP.

This is why I’ve included them and personally I’ve no intend to include anything else, as I already mention. I was just asking in case I have not enough information if LISP needs to be considered, in case has more traction that what I knew. Now I guess the answer is NO.

Regards,
Jordi
 

-----Mensaje original-----
De: "STARK, BARBARA H" <[e-mail]>
Responder a: <[e-mail]>
Fecha: miércoles, 12 de abril de 2017, 16:32
Para: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Asunto: RE: [v6ops] LISP support for draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc7084-bis-00

    > Fully agree with Cameron view, and furthermore … if we need to choose one
    > mechanism because how many millions of devices already use it, and this
    > demonstrates the success, clearly 464XLAT has more TENS OF MILLIONS of
    > users than DS-LITE + 6RD + MAP E + MAP T, altogether, and of course it
    > means a single ISP having both wired and cellular networks, can have a single
    > way to deploy IPv6 instead of two.
    
    RFC 7084 has nothing to do with cellular (3GPP) networks. 3GPP deployments are not relevant to this discussion. 3GPP and wireline deployments are not currently converged, with the 3GPP RAN and IP core networks being distinct from the wireline IP access networks (wireline is used as backhaul for the 3GPP networks at layers 1 and 2, but not for IP). What makes sense for a 3GPP deployment may or may not make sense for a wireline deployment -- especially considering the lack of extensive IA_PD support in deployed 3GPP networks.
    
    If some ISP with wireline and wireless has interest in converging their wireline IPv6 deployment with their wireless, in the very near future (using network elements that are already being trialed or have been deployed), it would indeed be nice for them to speak up. Personally, I have no internal requests from my company to drive such IPv6 convergence.
    
    So please don't use statistics related to 3GPP deployments in an argument for wireline CE routers. And please don't try to bloat the CE router with everything needed to support attachment to a 3GPP network.
    
    In the wireline deployments I'm aware of, the only ones reaching into the millions have used dual stack, 6rd, or (possibly) DS-Lite. And of these 3, the only one that I believe should ever be considered mandatory for all CE routers is dual stack.
    Barbara
    



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.