Hi, Nick, Thanks for the discussion.
2009/12/3 Nick Heatley <[email protected]>: > Hi, Good day to you all. > I hope you don't mind me commenting in your discussion. > Could I ask you please to clarify whether you are discussing UE to UE > applications or UE application to hosted App servers? ==> we are doing both. > > If it is UE to App server, then surely the App server will need to be dual > stacked as a prerequisite? ==> not always true, some are dual stack, other could be only. > IMHO the reasons for why an app server can be IPv6-only are similar reasons > to why IPv4 Port Address Translation breaks services - the need for nice > unique realms of IP addressing - does that make the use case of IPv4 legacy > UE to IPv6 only App server academic (assuming all GI-DSL and P-NAT ultimately > require some flavour of port address translation)? I doubt anyone in the > operator's network or externally will create an IPv6 only App server just for > the sake of it; which I guess supports Alain's and Sri's conclusion > previously. ==> Here your assumption is not true, for host to host communication, I don't see the necessity of port address translation. IPv6 only app server is design mainly be visited by inside the network other than outside. > UE to UE is a little different I guess, so is this the driver Hui? > Hui, if you are considering UE to UE do you know of any UE to UE applications > implemented today? ==> it does exist in our work, and doesn't this sound fancy application which would encourage the growth of mobile internet? > > Is the key use case (and differentiator) the UE to UE use case with mixed > IPv6 and legacy IPv4-bound apps? ==> at this moment, legacy IPv4-bound apps is mandate to support since some of key application is not easily to be upgraded. > To be honest my personal thought is that we could drive UE to UE to be via > IPv6 Apps at the UE and an IPv6 bearer only; is this wrong? ==> you are making the second Internet, it is not migration of the current Internet, I would not say it is wrong. thanks -Hui > > Thanks and Regards, > Nick > T-Mobile > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Hui Deng > Sent: 02 December 2009 15:36 > To: Sri Gundavelli > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Softwires] Host based translation: v4-v6 > > we have multiple reasons to do this, > there are lots of operator are planning to do IPv6 only, most of > people already see that. > > one key point, we are doing IPv6, not IPv4, > you are proposing that let's support IPv4, and assign them unlimited > IPv4 address. > finally nobody use IPv6. > > Thanks > > -Hui > > > 2009/12/2 Sri Gundavelli <[email protected]>: >> I agree. When there is a case of v4 legacy app unable to use IPv6 transport >> for what ever reasons, its rather better to go enable IPv4 on the peer, >> still supporting IPv6-only network over dual-stack lite network. Or, modify >> the app to use IPv6 transport and avoid the huge cost and management of >> dealing with a modified stack and on all OS variants. We are mainly mixing a >> true legacy requirement with new requirements which are debatable. >> >> >> Sri >> >> >> On 12/1/09 9:04 AM, "Durand, Alain" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Why go through all that trouble when you could make the server app >> dual-stack capable in the first place? >> That could be done with or without assigning a unique v4 address to it, >> simply running v4 over v6... >> Not you'd be back to a v4 app talking to a v4 app on hosts only having v6 >> addresses configured natively. >> >> - Alain. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Softwires mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > T-Mobile (UK) Limited > Company Registered Number: 02382161 > Registered Office Address: Hatfield Business Park, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, > AL10 9BW > Registered in England and Wales > > NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER > > This email (including attachments) is confidential. If you are not the > intended recipient, notify the sender immediately, delete this email from > your system and do not disclose or use for any purpose. > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
