Subject: [Softwires] Second working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-04

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 23:33:34 -0500

Hi all,
  This message starts a second softwire working group last call on
advancing the draft about providing Public IPv4 over IPv6 Access Network
as a Standards Track RFC. The authors believe that this version has
addressed the issues raised during the previous WGLC. The draft
is available at

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-04.txt
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-04

Substantive comments and statements of support/opposition for advancing
this document should be directed to the mailing list. Editorial
suggestions can be sent directly to the authors. The chairs will send in
their comments as well during the last call period. This last call will
conclude on January 4, 2013.

Regards,
Suresh & Yong

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 09:54:39 +0100

Dear Suresh, all,

With all due respect to the authors of this draft, I really think this document should not move forward. 

The feature described in this draft can be easily integrated in the current unified CPE effort (binding mode: MAP1:1/Lw4over6) or the document needs to be extended to cover the port restriction feature.

Cheers,
Med

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : [email-masked] 
>[mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de Suresh Krishnan
>Envoyé : lundi 17 décembre 2012 05:34
>À : Softwires WG
>Cc : Yong Cui; Ralph Droms
>Objet : [Softwires] Second working group last call for 
>draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-04
>
>Hi all,
>_______________________________________________
>Softwires mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>

---

From: Qi Sun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 17:07:23 +0800

Dear Suresh,

I support the draft moving forward.

Best Regards,
Qi Sun

---

From: Peng Wu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2012 08:33:05 +0800

Hi Med,

> The feature described in this draft can be easily integrated in the current unified CPE effort (binding mode: MAP1:1/Lw4over6) or the document needs to be extended to cover the port restriction fea…

Comparing to address sharing transition mechanism, public 4over6 is
easier to implement and is more compatible to current network. On the
CE side, with public 4over6 there is no need to modify the DHCP(v4/v6)
client to support port-set allocation. ALG related implementations are
also not necessary.  On the BR side, DHCP server doesn't have to adapt
on how to maintain the IPv4 address + port-set pool. In general, there
are much fewer modifications to the current network elements.

On the other hand, with full IPv4 addresses assigned,  public 4over6
CEs can running application servers freely, which is of great
importance to the IPv6 transition for ICPs. As for regular users,
upnp,nat-pmp service can be supported much better with public 4over6.

Public 4over6 is simple and clean for ISPs, ICPs and end-users. We
simply put the features they need in these cases and call it done. If
we do it in the CPE draft and the port-set involved draft, we
overloaded it with features they do not need at all.

Cheers,
Peng

---

From: Qiong <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:40:41 +0800

Dear Suresh,

I support this document to move forward. This version has solved all the
technical issues, and it is quite simple for some specific use case. I
think it is ready to move forward :)

Merry Christmas and Happy new year !

Qiong

-- 
==============================================
Qiong Sun
China Telecom Beijing Research Institude

Open source code:
lightweight 4over6: *http://sourceforge.net/projects/laft6/*
PCP-natcoord:* http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcpportsetdemo/ *
===============================================