forwarding this to the list also, in case anyone cares to comment
regards,
Yannis
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action:
draft-ietf-softwire-lightweight-4over6-deployment-01.txt
Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2017 23:13:29 +0300
From: Yannis Nikolopoulos <yan...@otenet.gr>
To: yiu_...@cable.comcast.com, xie...@ctbri.com.cn, fib...@gmail.com,
tianxiang li <peter416...@gmail.com>, Farrer, Ian (DTAG)
<ian.far...@telekom.de>
CC: Nikolopoulos Yannis <yan...@otenet.gr>
Dear authors ,
as I said in the past, I believe that this is a very useful draft. We,
at OTE Greece are also deploying LW4o6 so if
you need to enrich the draft's test cases let me know.
Also, please find a few comments below:
"1. intro
The logging requirements to meet regulatory requirements may be
reduced as it is only necessary to log when a subscriber is
provisioned or de-provisioned in the lwAFTR. This relaxes the
need for logging on a per-session, or per port block allocation."
[YN]: One still cannot comply with regulatory requirements because of
the A+P model (and because most servers on the internet do not log the
client's port number).So, how are the regulatory requirements reduced?
"3.1. IP Addressing and Routing
In Lightweight 4over6, there is no inter-dependency between the IPv4
and IPv6 addressing schemes. This allows for complete flexibilty in
addressing architecture."
[YN]: although true, the above statement can be a bit misleading. I
believe that it should be mentioned that a proper addressing scheme for
IPv6 (lw4o6 esp.) should already be in place and ideally, IPv4 ranges
should be predefined (for routing efficienncy, e.g contiguous ranges)
"3.1.1. IPv4 Routing
The IPv4 addresses/prefixes that are allocated to customer's lwB4s
are advertised to the IPv4 Internet as being reachable via the
lwAFTR(s). If multiple lwAFTRs are all serving the same set of
lwB4s, all will advertise the same IPv4 reachable routes."
YN: if multiple lwAFTRs, IPv4 prefixes could also be split, for routing
efficiency. That all depends on operator's and operator's upstream
topology and PoPs
best regards,
Yannis
On 07/03/2017 06:58 PM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Softwires of the IETF.
Title : Deployment Considerations for Lightweight 4over6
Authors : Qiong Sun
Chongfeng Xie
Yiu L. Lee
Maoke Chen
Tianxiang Li
Ian Farrer
Filename :
draft-ietf-softwire-lightweight-4over6-deployment-01.txt
Pages : 23
Date : 2017-07-03
Abstract:
Lightweight 4over6 is a mechanism for providing IPv4 services to
clients connected to a single-stack IPv6 network. The architecture
is similar to DS-Lite, but the network address translation function
is relocated from the tunnel concentrator to the tunnel client, hence
reducing the amount of state which must be maintained in the
concentrator to a per-customer level. This document discusses the
applicability, describes various deployment models and provides
deployment considerations for Lightweight 4over6.
The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-lightweight-4over6-deployment/
There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-lightweight-4over6-deployment-01
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-softwire-lightweight-4over6-deployment-01
A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-softwire-lightweight-4over6-deployment-01
Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
