Subject: RE: [Softwires] IPv4 over IPv6 in Hubs and Spokes?

From: "Durand, Alain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 10:40:41 -0500

Ok, I see what you mean, thanks for the clarification.
 
We should replace HGW by CPE in all the diagrams as there are cases in the home where there are no gateways, just a CPE (CPE can be hosts or routers) and then add a diagram 0 where there is only on host/CPE initiating the softwire.
This is a perfectly valid case for v6 in v4 and will also cover DSTM.
 
   - Alain.

________________________________

From: [email-masked] on behalf of Tim Chown
Sent: Wed 1/18/2006 10:28 AM
To: Softwires Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Softwires] IPv4 over IPv6 in Hubs and Spokes?

On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 09:56:26AM -0500, Durand, Alain wrote:
> 
> The point is not do we want IPv4 over IPv6 tunneling or not,
> this was already decided: yes, we want it.

Understood.
 
> The issue here is: if we take the existing diagrams describing the v6 over v4 case,
> replace v4 by v6 and v6 by v4, do we cover reasonably all the cases or is there something
> inherently different in the v4 over v6 case that we absolutely need to introduce another diagram?

Sorry, I was catching up on a few dozen mails, and was responding to the
call for a 4-in-6 example (because the three used were all 6-in-4).
 
> I'm not sure how even the DSTM scenario you describe is any different from converse of the home PC acting
> as a softwire initiator in the v6 over v4 case...

Well, there is not necessarily a HGW device present as there would be in a
home environment.  The 'DSTM scenario' tunnels directly from the host to
the concentrator. 

If the three figures are kept for the hub section, perhaps reverse the
4/6-ness of example 2 and remove the HGW to indicate we are interested in
a host-based solution in a v6 dominant network (as called for in the
ent-analysis/scenario documents)?

Note I'm not making a case for DSTM, simply that DSTM 'solves' a current
scenario and for interoperability's sake it would be nice if the softwire
solution (which may or may not reuse components that DSTM uses like TSP)
catered for it.

I'm currently open-minded about the mesh scenario, but I do share some of
Pekka's concerns.

Tim

_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 21:07:39 -0600

Dear Alain,

I've made the s/HGW/CPE/ change in the current text... I can make the 
diagram change (and it makes sense to me).

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Durand, Alain" <[email-masked]>
To: "Tim Chown" <[email-masked]>; "Softwires Mailing List" 
<[email-masked]>
Cc: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 9:40 AM
Subject: RE: [Softwires] IPv4 over IPv6 in Hubs and Spokes?

We should replace HGW by CPE in all the diagrams as there are cases in the 
home where there are no gateways, just a CPE (CPE can be hosts or routers) 
and then add a diagram 0 where there is only on host/CPE initiating the 
softwire.
This is a perfectly valid case for v6 in v4 and will also cover DSTM.

   - Alain.

Understood.

Tim