Subject: Re: [Softwires] WG last call on draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-01

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 15:11:32 +0200

Dear all,

I agree with Reinaldo.

IMHO it makes sense to merge the two documents: either draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6 be extended to cover draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite or add one or two sentences to draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite to mention a non-shared IPv4 address may be assigned.

Doing so would help to rationalize the solution space and associated documents. We have the following main flavours:

(1) Full stateful mode: DS-Lite
(2) Full stateless mode: MAP
(3) Per-customer state/binding mode: lw4o6 (draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite)

All the three modes must support the ability to assign a full IPv4 address. 

Cheers,
Med 

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : [email-masked] 
>[mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de Reinaldo Penno
>Envoyé : lundi 28 mai 2012 07:53
>À : Sheng Jiang; Yong Cui; [email-masked]
>Objet : Re: [Softwires] WG last call on 
>draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-01
>
>-1 
>
>In which significant way this document is different from
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-
>lite-06 ?
>
>We can insert one paragraph in the above draft and allow 
>public IPs since
>NAT is optional. The two documents even use DHCPv4ov6 as provisioning.
>
> 
>
>On 5/27/12 6:32 PM, "Sheng Jiang" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>>The document looks mature for being advanced.
>>
>>Sheng Jiang
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: [email-masked] 
>[mailto:[email-masked]] On
>>> Behalf Of Yong Cui
>>> Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:31 PM
>>> To: [email-masked]
>>> Cc: Yong Cui
>>> Subject: [Softwires] WG last call on 
>draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-
>>> 01
>>> 
>>> Hi folks,
>>> 
>>> This is a wg last call on draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-01.
>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6/
>>> 
>>> As usual, please send editorial comments to the authors and
>>> substantive comments to the mailing list.
>>> 
>>> This wg last call will end on 2012 June 10 at 12pm EDT.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Yong & Alain
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Softwires mailing list
>>> [email-masked]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>>_______________________________________________
>>Softwires mailing list
>>[email-masked]
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Softwires mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>

---

From: Peng Wu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 00:30:42 +0800

Med,

>From protocol level, the difference between public 4over6 and
lightweight 4over6(b4-translated-ds-lite) lies in port-set support.
The extra efforts of lw 4over6 are as follows: (1) port set support in
DHCP provisioning; (2) NAT on the initiator side.(whose address pool
is not a full address but only a port set)  (3) port-set supporting in
the cocentrator's binding table.

While we may cover public 4over6 by lightweight 4over6 with a special
port set format (2^16 size) for (3), (1) and (2) brings quite
significant changes to the intiator side. If I'm only a pb 4over6
initiator, more typically a host initiator, all the complexity needed
is to plant a CRA process on the host, which is basically an IPv4 &
IPv6 socket function, to support DHCPv4-over-IPv6. The rest is already
there: we don't need to modify DHCP client, and IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel is
already supported in today's OS. No NAT is needed in host case, and
full e2e transparency is guaranteed. If we support this by lw 4over6,
we implemented extra complexity which is not needed at all by the
initiator.

We have deployement scenarios which probably don't require address
sharing, such as CERNET, and I guess maybe the ISPs in USA also do not
have an IPv4 address shortage problem?

So, aside from the fact that the pb 4over6 draft starts earlier and
its status has been a step furher, this is a problem of choice: do we
want two clean, simple mechanisms, or one mechanism trying to be
compatible with both.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 07:58:35 +0200

Hi Peng,

I vote for having one single document which covers both shared and full IPv4 address. 

If you start for instance from draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite, what is needed is to add one sentence to say a full IPv4 address can be provisioned. Does this make draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite more complex? I don't think so.

I really think we need all to do an effort of rationalizing the solutions space. 

Cheers,
Med 

>De : Peng Wu [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Envoyé : jeudi 7 juin 2012 18:31
>À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP
>Cc : Yong Cui; [email-masked]
>> IMHO it makes sense to merge the two documents: either 
>draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6 be extended to cover 
>draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite or add one or two 
>sentences to draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite to 
>mention a non-shared IPv4 address may be assigned.
>>
>> Doing so would help to rationalize the solution space and 
>associated documents. We have the following main flavours:
>>
>> (3) Per-customer state/binding mode: lw4o6 
>(draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite)
>>

---

From: Reinaldo Penno <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 10:00:07 -0700

Med,

I'm glad we are in synch. That's exactly what I suggested Peng to do it.
We can a single sentence in L46 to the effect:

"If a full public IPv4 is given through DHCP no port set support is needed
on CPE or concentrator. It is still up to the CPE if it wants to do NAT or
not". Many DC scenarios use 1:1 NAT.

Even DS-Lite can support public servers by using full port range port
forwarding and disabling NAT.

Thanks,

Reinaldo

On 6/7/12 10:58 PM, "[email-masked]"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>If you start for instance from draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite,
>what is needed is to add one sentence to say a full IPv4 address can be
>provisioned. Does this make draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite more
>complex? I don't think so.
>

---

From: Qi Sun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 12:16:55 +0800

Hi Reinado,

IMHO, both MAP(Mapping of Address and PORT ) and lw4over6 DO NOT
design to deal with full Ipv4 address case originally. In many
senarios,  users(like campanies, governments, ICPs and so on ) JUST
want full addresses instead of  shared addresses. It is more
reasonable to have Public 4over6 to handle this. And Public 4over6 is
matual enough to step forward without technical changes.

Best Regards!

Qi Sun