Hi, While thanking the authors for their attempt, I need to provide some high level feedback first on key issues: The rationale section 1.1 states "co-existance" as the goal - this appears to imply some entirely different solutions for which co-existance is needed", and here are two points: A) I can agree that DS.-lite is an entirely different solution, but I firmly believe that it is entirely outside the agreed scope which was a "unified solution CPE spec" in the context of MAP and Lw4o6. Thus, I would recommend that ds.-lite be dropped from this draft as it bears no influence on "unifying" MAP and Lw4o6, nor does it bear anything on the already "defined and shipped" ds.-lite solution. Work on such themes of "multiple solutions coexisting" is what the v6ops CPE draft is covering and I would place ds.-lite coexistence there.
B) I disagree that "co-existance" between Lw4o6 and MAP is a goal; a unified functional CPE spec for NAT44-less core relays accessed via IPv6 is. As such, describing "modes" as in "solution modes" is not conductive to that and a solution term neutral functional breakdown is essential and IMO possible (further explained below). This will only make the spec better and simpler for implementers. In Section 3 the draft coin a new term/class of solution called "Binding approach". This effectively refers to configuration state which *all* solutions need, and is not helpful in providing anything but more verbiage. Removing this classification from all of the text is recommended. Further in section 3 the draft lists different functional elements, and it is here that major changes are needed. For a unified solution a functional breakdown in a solution neutral text is essential. IMO A unified CE has the following basic functionalities, which I propose to be added to the text in place of the existing one: - IPv4 NAT whose address and port restrictions are configurable - an IPv6 transport whose source and destination transport address are deterministically derived/configurable - an IPv4 routing capability (also configurable) In example terms, consider a CPE configured with IPv4 address, restricted Port range X and IPv6 source address Y and transport address Z. There is no difference in these parameters between Lw4o6 and MAP, and it shows the essence of what we need to get at. One can comment further on the details of the draft, but getting the basic functional breakdown is essential (example above) before we get into that. The only thing different between the solutions are not the basic functionalities but rather how this functionality is configured. Regards, Woj.. On 29/11/2012 11:16, "mohamed.boucad...@orange.com" <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> wrote: >Dear all, > >As agreed in Atlanta, we prepared an I-D describing a proposed approach >for the unified CPE. > >We hope this version is a good starting point to have fruitful >discussion. > >Your comments, suggestions and contributions are more than welcome. > >Cheers, >Med > > >-----Message d'origine----- >De : i-d-announce-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:i-d-announce-boun...@ietf.org] >De la part de internet-dra...@ietf.org >Envoyé : jeudi 29 novembre 2012 10:57 >À : i-d-annou...@ietf.org >Objet : I-D Action: draft-bfmk-softwire-unified-cpe-00.txt > > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >directories. > > > Title : Unified Softwire CPE > Author(s) : Mohamed Boucadair > Ian Farrer > Suresh Krishnan > Filename : draft-bfmk-softwire-unified-cpe-00.txt > Pages : 12 > Date : 2012-11-29 > >Abstract: > Transporting IPv4 packets over IPv6 is a common solution to the > problem of IPv4 service continuity over IPv6-only provider networks. > A number of differing functional approaches have been developed for > this, each having their own specific characteristics. As these > approaches share a similar functional architecture and use the same > data plane mechanisms, this memo describes a specification whereby a > single CPE can interwork with all of the standardized and proposed > approaches to providing encapsulated IPv4 in IPv6 services. > > >The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bfmk-softwire-unified-cpe > >There's also a htmlized version available at: >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bfmk-softwire-unified-cpe-00 > > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > >_______________________________________________ >I-D-Announce mailing list >i-d-annou...@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce >Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
