Re: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6ops-incremental-cgn

[Rémi Després <[e-mail]>]

Mohacsi Janos  -  le (m/j/a) 5/20/09 11:05 AM:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 20 May 2009, Rémi Després wrote:
> 
>> Mohacsi Janos  -  le (m/j/a) 5/20/09 9:52 AM:
>>
>>> According to our findings in our IPv6 deployment:
>>> - deploying IPv6 on backbone network is easy and relatively painless
>>> - deploying IPv6 on access network is not obvious, but can be done in 
>>> scalable way
>>> - deploying IPv6 at customers is very painful - very conservative 
>>> application owners are hindering of introducing IPv6 even when their 
>>> application cannot support it....
>>>
>>> - deploying IPv6 at home has showstoppers: no IPv6 capable CPE under 
>>> 100 USD. After introducing such a device - at least 10 years is 
>>> necessary to the users to replace older devices.....
>>
>> I suggest a look at draft-despres-6rd-03 (soon to become an 
>> informational RFC).
>> Thanks to the 6rd idea, Free, the second largest Internet provider in 
>> France with millions of residential customers, has offered IPv6 to its 
>> home sites at no extra charge since December 2007.
>> I use IPv6 on a regular basis for Google access, GoogleMap, document 
>> access on IETF servers etc.
>>
>> In my understanding, BitTorrent on Free's network works better in IPv6 
>> than in IPv4 because hosts can receive incoming calls without 
>> limitations caused by IPv4 NATs.
> 
> 
> I very much aware 6rd solution - we discussed it on the IETF 72. The 
> most important drawbacks:
> - requires providider control over the CPE devices.

True (but more a provisional limitation than drawback.

> It could be improved the 6rd prefix made available via some method (.e.g 
> DHCP) for generic CPE devices + persuade CPE vendors to implement this 
> solution

Absolutely.

I participated in private discussions in this direction in San Francisco 
in March. As far as I know, Mark Townsley is planning to submit a draft 
to this effect.

Best regards,

RD