Le 2012-02-08 à 20:49, Cameron Byrne a écrit : > On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Rémi Després <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Behcet, >> >> Le 2012-02-08 à 09:46, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit : >> >>> Hi Cameron, >>> 4rd solution IMHO is more suitable for a fixed network. CPE in 4rd is >>> not appropriate to be hosted in a UE. >>> >>> I think your solution 464XLAT's mobile part is way better for your >>> purposes. There you can put all your IPv4 resources on the PLAT box so >>> that CLAT box is kept simpler. >>> >>> In 4rd, CPEs have A+P and BR is kept "stateless" these are not so >>> useful for your purposes, I think. >> >> Note however that: >> - 464XLAT doesn't support shared IPv4 addresses (while 4rd does) > > Hmm... we may be getting off topic. > > 464XLAT definitely shares IPv4 addresses on the PLAT -- That is RFC > 6146 -- statefule NAT64.
Well, if a customer _uses_ 464XLAT, it does get a full IPv4 address (sec 6.1). I don't see why a customer that has both an IPv6 prefix (used for more and more of its traffic) and a full public IPv4 address would need needs to use a NAT64. 464XLAT has a DNS proxy in CLATs, which I find a GOOD feature. Besides that, it ressembles to a subset of some solutions worked on in Softwire, restricted to full IPv4 addresses and to hub and spoke. Relationship with these other solutions belongs AFAIK to Softwire. > Perhaps what you mean to say is that 464XLAT uses stateful sharing of > IPv4 addresses as defined in RFC6146. The public IPv4 address > resources are decoupled from the IPv4 service deployment at the edge. > This is more flexible, IPv4 efficient, and allows for geographic > redundancy of the translation exit points. > > So, to summarize. Both 4RD and 464XLAT support address sharing. One > is stateless and the other is stateful. > >> - 4rd over 6rd can work, and therefore offer both IPv6 and shared-address >> IPv4 on an RFC1918 network, e.g. on a 3GPP IPv4 PDP (while 464XLAT cannot >> AFAIK). >> > > 4RD over 6RD? > > That is a lot of RD :) IPv4 Residual Deployment over IPv6 Rapid Deployment, why not? It is AFAIK a stateless alternative to PCP in DS-lite. Regards, RD > > I believe the implementation report here shows that 464XLAT provides a > good users experience on 3G networks > > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg11906.html > > CB > >> Regards, >> RD >> >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Behcet >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Cameron Byrne <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Are the map and 4rd solutions deployable for existing networks that do not >>>> have reserves of ipv4 ? My assumption is that these solutions target >>>> existing networks that have meaningful growth and they need a v6 solution. >>>> >>>> If yes, how? Any pointers within the reams of drafts I should look for? >>>> >>>> In my brief and simple skimming, it appears to me that setting up one of >>>> these solutions would require me to collapse my existing network to harvest >>>> back the addresses so that they may be redeployed in map. >>>> >>>> What would the deployment process be for an address exhausted network of 10 >>>> million subs with 10% annual growth be? >>>> >>>> Cb >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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
