Hi Peng, I vote for having one single document which covers both shared and full IPv4 address.
If you start for instance from draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite, what is needed is to add one sentence to say a full IPv4 address can be provisioned. Does this make draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite more complex? I don't think so. I really think we need all to do an effort of rationalizing the solutions space. Cheers, Med >-----Message d'origine----- >De : Peng Wu [mailto:pengwu....@gmail.com] >Envoyé : jeudi 7 juin 2012 18:31 >À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP >Cc : Yong Cui; softwires@ietf.org >Objet : Re: [Softwires] WG last call on >draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-01 > >Med, > >From protocol level, the difference between public 4over6 and >lightweight 4over6(b4-translated-ds-lite) lies in port-set support. >The extra efforts of lw 4over6 are as follows: (1) port set support in >DHCP provisioning; (2) NAT on the initiator side.(whose address pool >is not a full address but only a port set) (3) port-set supporting in >the cocentrator's binding table. > >While we may cover public 4over6 by lightweight 4over6 with a special >port set format (2^16 size) for (3), (1) and (2) brings quite >significant changes to the intiator side. If I'm only a pb 4over6 >initiator, more typically a host initiator, all the complexity needed >is to plant a CRA process on the host, which is basically an IPv4 & >IPv6 socket function, to support DHCPv4-over-IPv6. The rest is already >there: we don't need to modify DHCP client, and IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel is >already supported in today's OS. No NAT is needed in host case, and >full e2e transparency is guaranteed. If we support this by lw 4over6, >we implemented extra complexity which is not needed at all by the >initiator. > >We have deployement scenarios which probably don't require address >sharing, such as CERNET, and I guess maybe the ISPs in USA also do not >have an IPv4 address shortage problem? > >So, aside from the fact that the pb 4over6 draft starts earlier and >its status has been a step furher, this is a problem of choice: do we >want two clean, simple mechanisms, or one mechanism trying to be >compatible with both. > >On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 9:11 PM, <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> I agree with Reinaldo. >> >> IMHO it makes sense to merge the two documents: either >draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6 be extended to cover >draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite or add one or two >sentences to draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite to >mention a non-shared IPv4 address may be assigned. >> >> Doing so would help to rationalize the solution space and >associated documents. We have the following main flavours: >> >> (1) Full stateful mode: DS-Lite >> (2) Full stateless mode: MAP >> (3) Per-customer state/binding mode: lw4o6 >(draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite) >> >> All the three modes must support the ability to assign a >full IPv4 address. >> >> Cheers, >> Med >> >>>-----Message d'origine----- >>>De : softwires-boun...@ietf.org >>>[mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Reinaldo Penno >>>Envoyé : lundi 28 mai 2012 07:53 >>>À : Sheng Jiang; Yong Cui; softwires@ietf.org >>>Objet : Re: [Softwires] WG last call on >>>draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-01 >>> >>>-1 >>> >>>In which significant way this document is different from >>>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds- >>>lite-06 ? >>> >>>We can insert one paragraph in the above draft and allow >>>public IPs since >>>NAT is optional. The two documents even use DHCPv4ov6 as >provisioning. >>> >>> >>> >>>On 5/27/12 6:32 PM, "Sheng Jiang" <jiangsh...@huawei.com> wrote: >>> >>>>The document looks mature for being advanced. >>>> >>>>Sheng Jiang >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: softwires-boun...@ietf.org >>>[mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On >>>>> Behalf Of Yong Cui >>>>> Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:31 PM >>>>> To: softwires@ietf.org >>>>> Cc: Yong Cui >>>>> Subject: [Softwires] WG last call on >>>draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6- >>>>> 01 >>>>> >>>>> Hi folks, >>>>> >>>>> This is a wg last call on draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-01. >>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6/ >>>>> >>>>> As usual, please send editorial comments to the authors and >>>>> substantive comments to the mailing list. >>>>> >>>>> This wg last call will end on 2012 June 10 at 12pm EDT. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yong & Alain >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>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 > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
