Subject: [Softwires] Proposed methodology for comparing the various Softwires solutions

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 15:36:59 -0500

Comments and additions are invited. If there is no enthusiasm for the 
project I'll drop the subject.

Scope
-----

This would cover the various Softwires 4 across 6 approaches: DS-Lite 
(with GI DS-Lite a special case), MAP-E, LW4o6, MAP-T, 4rd.

Method
------

In summary, the analysis would proceed using two or three basic 
scenarios. The operation of each approach within each scenario would be 
analyzed by walking through how it would work for various aspects. All 
approaches would be evaluated against the same set of aspects (more 
details below). This preliminary analysis would be completed for all 
approaches before any conclusions are drawn.

Going forward, differences between the different approaches would be 
identified. These would form the core of the I-D in its finished form. 
The text reflecting the initial analysis would be discarded if it wasn't 
interesting or moved to appendices if it was.

Scenarios
---------

At a minimum, we should use two scenarios: an established fixed 
broadband network, and an established LTE network.  Suggestions welcome 
here if this list should be expanded or the scenarios described more 
elaborately.

Aspects of the Walk-Through
---------------------------

I see the following aspects as a preliminary list. Again, comments are 
invited.

Numbering Plans
- IPv4
- IPv6

Routing

Operations
- bringing a border router into service
- adding a subscriber
- moving a subscriber
- logging
- lawful surveillance

Scalability
- growth in number of subscribers
- growth in traffic

Fault Management
- resilience to network failures
- traceability of subscriber issues

Network Attachment

Data Plane Issues
- fragmentation
- multicast
- check sums

QoS
- delay
- jitter

  Tom Taylor

---

From: Qiong <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 19:11:21 +0800

Hi Tom,

I think this document would be helpful for operators to understand
different solutions. Just two quick questions:
1) As now the outline is a little similar to the deployment drafts of
different solutions, are you going to give step-by-step guidance for
readers about how to deploy these solutions, or just the comparison among
them ? For me, I think this draft should focus on the differences and
readers can refer to each deployment draft for further reading.
2) Does this draft only cover softwire solutions ? As far as I know,
T-mobile has deployed XLAT in their LTE network. So should XLAT be included
in this draft?

I may come back with further comments. Thanks!

Best wishes
Qiong

On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 4:36 AM, Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>wrote:

> In summary, the analysis would proceed using two or three basic scenarios.
> The operation of each approach within each scenario would be analyzed by
> walking through how it would work for various aspects. All approaches would
> be evaluated against the same set of aspects (more details below). This
> preliminary analysis would be completed for all approaches before any
> conclusions are drawn.
>
> identified. These would form the core of the I-D in its finished form. The
> text reflecting the initial analysis would be discarded if it wasn't
> At a minimum, we should use two scenarios: an established fixed broadband
> network, and an established LTE network.  Suggestions welcome here if this
> list should be expanded or the scenarios described more elaborately.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>

-- 
==============================================
Qiong Sun
China Telecom Beijing Research Institude

Open source code:
lightweight 4over6: *http://sourceforge.net/projects/laft6/
<http://sourceforge.net/projects/laft6/>*
PCP-natcoord:* http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcpportsetdemo/
<http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcpportsetdemo/> *
===============================================

---

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 08:28:10 -0500

> readers can refer to each deployment draft for further reading.

[PTT] I had in mind comparison only, so we are in agreement.

> T-mobile has deployed XLAT in their LTE network. So should XLAT be included

[PTT] I didn't want to get into stuff that was of historical interest 
only, but I expect it would be reasonable to add something else in 
active use.

> I may come back with further comments. Thanks!
...

---

From: Edwin Cordeiro <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 12:35:24 -0300

Hi Tom,

I would like to assist on that. I'm finishing writing my Master Degree
Thesis comparing DS-Lite, 464XLAT, MAP-E and MAP-T performance. I got of
one CGN + encapsulation (DS-Lite), one CGN + dual translation (464XLAT),
one A+P + encapsulation (MAP-E) and one A+P + dual translation (MAP-T).

At the moment I have collected performance (throughput, jitter, latency,
packet loss and overhead) and user experience (Internet access, Torrent,
Skype etc).

I used a small scale network with ISC's DS-Lite implementation and
CERNET's MAP-E and MAP-T implementation. For the 464XLAT I had to use
Tayga, as the current solution being used at T-Mobile is Android only
and Tayga was the only way I found to implement 464XLAT without using
Android and allowing me to have the same network for all the tests.

I was already planning to write a summary of my results as a draft when
I had finished everything. Your proposed scope is larger than mine as
you are proposing to analyze more techniques and do planning /
management considerations, but I believe I can assist you.

Edwin Cordeiro

Em 06/03/14 17:36, Tom Taylor escreveu:
> scenarios. The operation of each approach within each scenario would
> be analyzed by walking through how it would work for various aspects.
> All approaches would be evaluated against the same set of aspects
> (more details below). This preliminary analysis would be completed for
> all approaches before any conclusions are drawn.
>
> The text reflecting the initial analysis would be discarded if it
> wasn't interesting or moved to appendices if it was.
>
> Scenarios
> ---------
>
> broadband network, and an established LTE network.  Suggestions
> welcome here if this list should be expanded or the scenarios
> described more elaborately.
>

---

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 12:11:50 -0500

This sounds excellent. Glad to have your help as a co-author. I note 
that application compatibility is an aspect I had failed to list below, 
but is surely important.

Tom