Subject: [Softwires] draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite and MAP

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 23:32:07 -0500

I figured it was time to pick on someone else, so I reviewed 
draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite. I found it really easy to 
understand, and all I found to change was a couple of typos.

Of course, one reason lw4o6 easier to read than MAP is because it does 
not describe a port mapping algorithm. The other reason is because the 
MAP document has to describe the EA bits and their use. But that's a 
fundamental difference between the two approaches, and I can't see much 
chance to simplify MAP. The only possibility is to change the 
provisioning approach to provision the Rule IPv6 prefix, the complete 
shared IPv4 address, and the PSID explicitly, then describe how to 
construct the MAP endpoint IPv6 address.

Getting back to draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite, I'd say it's 
ready to be adopted.

Tom Taylor

---

From: Qi Sun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 13:28:55 +0800

Dear Tom & all,

IMHO, in addition to Tom's points, draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite is easier for OAM because there is no port mapping algorithm. It does not require operators to plan IPv6 and IPv4 address pool together, which is convenient for operators whose IPv4 address pools are scattered, or IPv4/IPv6 address resources are managed by different servers. 

Also, I think draft-cui-* is ready to move forward.

Best Regards,
Qi Sun

On 2013-1-29, at 下午12:32, Tom Taylor wrote:

> I figured it was time to pick on someone else, so I reviewed draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite. I found it really easy to understand, and all I found to change was a couple of typos.
> 
> Of course, one reason lw4o6 easier to read than MAP is because it does not describe a port mapping algorithm. The other reason is because the MAP document has to describe the EA bits and their use. But that's a fundamental difference between the two approaches, and I can't see much chance to simplify MAP. The only possibility is to change the provisioning approach to provision the Rule IPv6 prefix, the complete shared IPv4 address, and the PSID explicitly, then describe how to construct the MAP endpoint IPv6 address.
> 
> Getting back to draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite, I'd say it's ready to be adopted.
> 
> Tom Taylor
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

---

From: Yuchi Chen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:07:19 +0800

Dear Tom and Qi,

Thanks for your support for moving lw4o6 forward. Lw4o6 is simple and easy
to understand. The tests and trials that have been carried out show that
lw4o6 is easy to implement and deploy, and it can work well in the address
sharing scenario. As a participant of the lw4o6 demo in Atlanta, I was very
glad and considered it a great honor to show out all the great features of
lw4o6. IMHO, draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite is ready to move
forward as well.

Best regards!
Yuchi Chen

2013/1/29 Qi Sun <[email-masked]>

>
> Dear Tom & all,
>
> IMHO, in addition to Tom's points,
> draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite is easier for OAM because there is
> no port mapping algorithm. It does not require operators to plan IPv6 and
> IPv4 address pool together, which is convenient for operators whose IPv4
> address pools are scattered, or IPv4/IPv6 address resources are managed by
> different servers.
>
> not describe a port mapping algorithm. The other reason is because the MAP
> document has to describe the EA bits and their use. But that's a
> chance to simplify MAP. The only possibility is to change the provisioning
> approach to provision the Rule IPv6 prefix, the complete shared IPv4
> address, and the PSID explicitly, then describe how to construct the MAP
> endpoint IPv6 address.
> >

---

From: Qiong <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 23:22:20 +0800

Dear Tom,

On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>wrote:

> draft-cui-softwire-b4-**translated-ds-lite. I found it really easy to
> Of course, one reason lw4o6 easier to read than MAP is because it does not
> describe a port mapping algorithm. The other reason is because the MAP
[Qiong] Right. You have just pointed out some essential differences between
MAP and lw4o6.

Actually, the major difference is not to use an algorithm or not . Even for
DS-Lite and NAT444, most vendors have already implemented some kind of
algorithm in AFTR to map between IPv6 address pool, IPv4 address pool and
port-set. The key here is whether to import these algorithm parameters
EXPLICITLY into IPv6 address or not. Lw4o6 does not import anything into
IPv6 address. The AFTR can/or can not implement an algorithm for mapping
between IPv6 address pool, IPv4 address pool and port-set, which is only an
implementation choice. But it can truely gain more flexibility for
operators to use/define freely of their own IPv6 address, and you can also
achieve very good features like scalibility, no-NAT in AFTR, reduced syslog
messages, etc.

Besides, I have to say again that this solution is quite simple. Before the
demo in IETF85, most vendors only took 3~4 weeks to understand, design, and
finish implementing the whole functionalities. For operators, we also find
it very simple to run it, just configuring your available IPv6 address
pools, IPv4 address pools and port-set quota is enough.

That's why we like it, and hope it will be helpful for more people.

Best wishes
Qiong

>
> Getting back to draft-cui-softwire-b4-**translated-ds-lite, I'd say it's
> ready to be adopted.
>
> Tom Taylor
> ______________________________**_________________
> Softwires mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/softwires<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>
>

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

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

---

From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 17:56:25 +0000

> is whether to import these algorithm parameters EXPLICITLY into IPv6
>address or not.
> Lw4o6 does not import anything into IPv6 address.

Nor does MAP in a typical deployment. IOW, MAP doesn't require IPv6 prefix
assignment (or addressing policy) to be different from what it would be
without MAP.

It is about parsing part of IPv6 prefix such that it means something (for
MAP).

Cheers,
Rajiv

-----Original Message-----
From: Qiong <[email-masked]>
Date: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 10:22 AM
To: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Cc: Softwires-wg list <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite and MAP

>Dear Tom,
>
>On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Tom Taylor
><[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>fundamental difference between the two approaches,
> and I can't see much chance to simplify MAP. The only possibility is to
>change the provisioning approach to provision the Rule IPv6 prefix, the
>complete shared IPv4 address, and the PSID explicitly, then describe how
>to construct the MAP endpoint IPv6 address.
>
>
>[Qiong] Right. You have just pointed out some essential differences
>between MAP and lw4o6.
>
>
>Actually, the major difference is not to use an algorithm or not . Even
>for DS-Lite and NAT444, most vendors have already implemented some kind
>of algorithm in AFTR to map between IPv6 address pool, IPv4 address pool
>and port-set. The key here
> is whether to import these algorithm parameters EXPLICITLY into IPv6
>address or not. Lw4o6 does not import anything into IPv6 address. The
>AFTR can/or can not implement an algorithm for mapping between IPv6
>address pool, IPv4 address pool and port-set, which
> is only an implementation choice. But it can truely gain more
>flexibility for operators to use/define freely of their own IPv6 address,
>and you can also achieve very good features like scalibility, no-NAT in
>AFTR, reduced syslog messages, etc.
>
>
>Besides, I have to say again that this solution is quite simple. Before
>the demo in IETF85, most vendors only took 3~4 weeks to understand,
>design, and finish implementing the whole functionalities. For operators,
>we also find it very simple to
> run it, just configuring your available IPv6 address pools, IPv4 address
>pools and port-set quota is enough.
>
>
>lightweight 4over6: http://sourceforge.net/projects/laft6/
>PCP-natcoord: 
>http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcpportsetdemo/
><http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcpportsetdemo/>