Dear Alain, thank you for your comments. I have some comments inline. On Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 10:25 PM, Durand, Alain < [email protected]> wrote:
> On 12/3/09 1:54 AM, "bo zhou" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > [Bo] I agree "DS-lite makes E2E transparency argument." But left part I do > not agree. Host-based translation can make the applications running through > the transport network transparency, never care what kind of transport > network (IPv4, IPv6) running. Considering of E2E concept, sort out issues at > the end is better than in the middle of network. > By the way, I think there is a tricky point in DS-lite, DS-lite can assign > unlimited IPv4 address to the host, the concept behind this point is very > similar as A+P: *save IPv4*, I believe DS-lite is a good solution to save > IPv4, but I am not sure it is a good solution for IPv6 migration and > deployment. People use DS-lite solution never want to update their service > to support IPv6, because no risk of IPv4 address exhaustion exist if DS-lite > running well. > > ===> Bo: > From a service provider perspective, what matter is NOT which flavor of IP > I like or don’t. What matters is the service > I can offer to my customers. > > [bo] Does this mean DS-lite care operator's service rather than IPv6? > It is true that today, a v4 service has much more value than a v6 > service. Things will certainly change, but right now, this is the case. > > [bo] So from the view of DS-lite, when the change will become true? > > Now, I want to refute your argument than running DS-lite, you’ll never want > to update the service to support IPv6. > > [bo] HBT encourage v4 host to visit v6 server, but DS-lite recommend visit IPv4 application server. > First and foremost, DS-lite runs over IPv6. That is you MUST deploy IPv6 > in the access network to deploy DS-lite. > > [bo] DS-lite use the closed IPv6 bearer network and only tiny part of whole Internet. This is the excuse DS-lite try to assign unlimited IPv4 address. This closed bearer network could be any network, such as GRE tunnel. > Second, this is the opportunity to break the chicken and egg problem. > Now, you have a real v6 access network in place, you can have a serious > conversation with application vendors & content providers to port their > stuff to IPv6. > > [bo] But DS-lite do not deploy IPv6 server, am I right? > Third, every packet that moves over the now enabled IPv6 network is a > packet that does not move over the DS-lite NAT AFTR IPv4 box. Ie, the more > IPv6 traffic we get, the less reliance we have on that NAT infrastructure > and we can expect to cap the cost. > > [bo] Because DS-lite assign unlimited IPv4 address to the UEs, so UEs will keep using IPv4 traffic through the AFTR. > > Is it a slower route than ‘mandating’ IPv6 everywhere right now? Sure. But > at least it is a doable thing, that makes business sense. > In the last 15 years, the argument “let’s just do IPv6” has not been very > successful... > > [bo] Well, somebody do not want to do IPv6, we just want to try. > > - Alain. > > -- Regards, Bo Zhou China Mobile
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
