Hi Ian & softwirers， I have reviewed the document. I agree with Linda. Since there are many transition technologies, appling the method of this document, is it necessary to analyze any other technologies except MAP/LW4o6/DS-Lite?
Thanks, Wei "Softwires" <[email protected]> Re 2014/08/21 15:14:04: > Hi，Ian > > Since multiple IPv6 transitions technologies have been deployed in > current network. It seems > urgent to have a standard draft providing a unified mechanism to > integrate these > scenarioes in a network with unifed cpe(s) and unifed network > gateway(s), as well as unified > provisioning mechanism. > > I guess it would be better advanced if some problems listed below > can be better addressed: > > 1. whether it would be better to expand the IPv4-in-IPv6 softwire > to all softwires including > IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel、IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnel and translation > mechanism. Because no matter > encapsulation or decapsulation or translation are all basic > funtions for cpe(s).It seems > kind of limited if this draft is only restricted to IPv4-in-IPv6softwire. > > 2. It seems better to notify directly the role of the unified > cpe(s):whether this cpe is a B4 > or a lwB4 or a MAP-E CE or a MAP-T CE, through a DHCP option or > TR-069. Because it seems > kind of complicated for the unifed cpe to ascertain what role it is. > > After all, only reviving it, then we can complete it in a better fashion. > > BRs, > Linda Wang > > > "Softwires" <[email protected]> 写于 2014-08-20 20:20:16: > > > <[email protected]> > > 发件人: "Softwires" <[email protected]> > > > > 2014-08-20 20:20 > > > > 收件人 > > > > <[email protected]>, > > > > 抄送 > > > > [email protected] > > > > 主题 > > > > [Softwires] Is there any intest in re-visiting the Unified CPE Problem? > > > > Hi, > > > > At the last Softwire meeting in Toronto, I presented a question > > around whether the expired Unified CPE draft needs to be brought > > back to life (http://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-softwire- > > unified-cpe-01.txt). There was little support for this during the > > meeting, so I’m taking it to the list to gauge if there’s wider > > interest in this problem. > > > > Currently in our network we are facing some of the problems that the > > Unified CPE intended to solve. Specifically, we will have DS-Lite, > > lw4o6 and public 4over6 in the operator network. The deployed HGWs > > may support DS-Lite only (RFC6204 compliant ‘off-the-shelf’ CPEs) or > > may be capable of all three. A individual HGW may also need to use > > different mechanisms at different points in its lifecycle (e.g. > > lw4o6 initially, but public 4over6 if the customer is located a full > > IPv4 address to use with non A+P compatible L4 protocols) > > > > So, my questions here are whether there are other operators (or > > vendors) that see problems of this type in their networks, and is > > there enough interest to open up the unified CPE problem again? > > > > Thanks, > > Ian > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
