On 9/28/10 4:09 AM, Yiu L. Lee wrote: > Hi Washam, > > Don't forget there are also Softwire Hub-and-Spoke (L2TPv2 based) and 6rd+. > So far, we don't hear much response to support this work in the operator's > community.
I know of more than one L2TPv2 based softwire deployments active today. A new one is getting ready to go online soon as well (sorry, not my place to spill the beans on who). Given existing deployment of L2TP and TSP, I still find it hard to see why another stateful point-to-point tunnel is really necessary at this stage of the game. - Mark > > Regards, > Yiu > > > On 9/27/10 9:49 PM, "WashamFan" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Please see inline. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> >> Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 4:17 am >> Subject: Re: [Softwires] comments on draft-carpenter-softwire-sample-00 >> To: WashamFan <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected] >> >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On 2010-09-27 21:05, WashamFan wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> It says, >>>> >>>> The SAMPLE server will act as an IPv6 router. In the simplest case, >>>> it will forward all IPv6 packets to a default route, except those >>>> whose destination address lies within the PSAMPLE prefix, which >>> will >>>> be encapsulated and sent towards the host (CPE) and port >>> indicated by >>>> the V4ADDR and PN values. >>>> >>>> >>>> I think it is not appropriate to assume NAT traversal without >>>> relay can be always successful. >>> >>> I don't understand your comment. If you have a NAT that you cannot >>> traverse with UDP, you have many other problems, not just a lack >>> of IPv6 connectivity. >> >> I misunderstood. I thought the text implies direct tunnels established >> instead of hairpinning via SAMPLE server when SAMPLE client to >> SAMPLE client communication occurs . >> >>>> Hairpinning might be always used >>>> for simplicity. >>> >>> Yes, that is the SAMPLE model. And it's a discussion for the >>> community whether or not this is acceptable. >>> >>>> >>>> I'd like to know the status of the draft, is the WG pursuing this >>>> work? >>> >>> There are three drafts aiming at the same problem, SAMPLE, >>> draft-lee-softwire-6rd-udp, and draft-despres-softwire-6rdplus. >>> Please hold your breath, there's hope of a joint proposal >>> from several authors within a few days. >> >> Is it possible to combine all these efforts? I see 2 major >> difference between draft-carpenter-softwire-sample-00 >> and draft-lee-softwire-6rd-udp-02 at least: >> >> 1. According to the IPv6 address assignment, SAMPLE >> is to connect isolated IPv6 hosts but 6rd-udp is to connect >> both isolated IPv6 hosts and LANs. >> >> 2. They are different in terms of IPv6 address assignment >> procedure. SAMPLE uses ND but 6rd-udp might use RADIUS, >> let's say. >> >> Personally, I think it is meaningful to work on tunneling >> IPv6 traversing NAT, but I think we should justify the work >> by clarifying how bad Teredo did the job before we reinvent >> the wheel. >> >> THanks, >> washam >> >> >>> Brian >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Softwires mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
