Subject: [v4tov6transition] fill a roster in advance http://v4v6transeproster.wikispaces.com/

From: Tina TSOU <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2010 19:41:37 +0200

Hi all,

To have a list of names and affiliations in advance to aid with  
recognizing people on the call, would you fill a roster here?

http://v4v6transeproster.wikispaces.com/

Ed volunteers to take some notes for minutes, but with telecon and  
people all over the place it would be good to have someone in a couple  
locations, e.g. if you have a group of people at one city someone  
could take notes there.  Also helpful to have a list of names and  
affiliations in advance to aid with recognizing them on the call.  Ed  
can take on editing them all together after the meeting.

B. R.
Tina
http://tinatsou.weebly.com

---

From: Tina TSOU <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 07:42:03 +0200

You can edit the wiki without UID and password.

B. R.
Tina

On Sep 7, 2010, at 7:41 PM, Tina TSOU wrote:

> people all over the place it would be good to have someone in a  
> couple locations, e.g. if you have a group of people at one city  
> someone could take notes there.  Also helpful to have a list of  
> names and affiliations in advance to aid with recognizing them on  
> the call.  Ed can take on editing them all together after the meeting.
>
>
> B. R.
> Tina

---

From: "YangGL" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 17:18:31 +0800

Hi all,

There are some informations from our test as below. It may be useful.

1.      More than 99% internet traffic is generated by laptop users using
EVDO card in China Telecom’s 3G network. Nearly half of internet traffic is
P2P. namely the application model, traffic model and user behavior in CT’s
mobile network are similar with broadband network.

2.      After upgrading BAS last week, there are 2000 users translated to
dual stack, but just 20 users can obtain an IPv6 address successfully. It is
because that some of OS (windows XP) and CPE ( Auto dial-up) cannot support
IPv6 completely.

Application, OS and CPE, all are big problems to IPv6 smooth translation.
Mobile network is also not easy.

Best regards,

Yang Guoliang

---

From: "Yiu L. Lee" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 08:18:05 -0400

Hi Guoliang,

Thanks for sharing the data. This is real life data to give us more
references. I got one question. When you said ³Auto dial-up² can¹t support
IPv6, do you mean the access network doesn¹t support IPv6? Or the PPP driver
running on the hosts can¹t support IPv6?

Thanks,
Yiu

On 9/8/10 5:18 AM, "YangGL" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> 1.     More than 99% internet traffic is generated by laptop users using EVDO
> card in China Telecom¹s 3G network. Nearly half of internet traffic is P2P.
> namely the application model, traffic model and user behavior in CT¹s mobile
> network are similar with broadband network.
> 
> 2.     After upgrading BAS last week, there are 2000 users translated to dual
> stack, but just 20 users can obtain an IPv6 address successfully. It is
> _______________________________________________
> v4tov6transition mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4tov6transition

---

From: Cameron Byrne <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 08:06:51 -0700

> mobile network are similar with broadband network.

Interesting.  This goes to show how different the various networks are
in the various regions and why specific solutions are required to meet
specific needs, and how general advice from IETF can be
counter-productive since there is not wide audience for specific
deployment advice.  There is always an audience for lessons learned.

This is good information to share and good forum to share it.  You are
doing the right thing in taking on the investigation for what best
fits your network and your users, and profiling users and traffic is
smart starting point.

Bandwidth is a good metric to dimensioning systems but not a good
metric for defining IP address consumption.  Just talking mobile here,
since IPv6 is primarily driven by address exhaustion, it would be
interesting to know how many addresses are consumed for data cards vs
handsets? In my network 99.9% of the addresses are consumed by
handsets, not data cards.  So, if i want to *begin* solving the
address exhaustion problem, it makes more sense to look at handsets as
a first target to transition to IPv6.  For me, the handsets have a
large impact on addressing resources and can adopt IPv6 easily in many
cases [Jari's draft on ipv6-only].  Tethered handsets will be a
challenge, since they appear on the network as PCs ... once again,
probably better to deffer this problem.  And a note here, in 3GPP
mobile, deferring IPv6 transition to certain classes of users is a
perfectly acceptable IPv6 transition path since each handset and APN
can be configured to ask for IPv4 and / or IPv6.  Having a mix of
IPv4, IPv6, and dual-stack is a frictionless path to transition in
3GPP networks.  And more broadly, i believe a mix of IPv4-only,
IPv6-only, and DS will be the reality of the Internet in the coming
months and years.

>From a deployment perspective, i have found it is best to look for the
simplest solutions that have the largest impacts first, and solve the
complicated cases later.  In IPv6 transition, delaying the complicated
problems is additionally beneficial since it gives content providers
and users more time to naturally upgrade to newer IPv6 compliant
technologies like Windows 7.

Regards,

Cameron

---

From: "YangGL" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 11:06:27 +0800

CT’s access network is layer 2 network. It is unconcerned with IPv6
theoretically. But some layer 3 ACLs always be deployed on it for the
reasons of security. Some IPv6 packets will be dropped by mistake. So the
access network cannot support IPv6 over it directly. Fortunately, all of the
broadband users access the network by the means of PPPoE dial-up. So access
network isn’t the reason for the failure.

In China, some users dial-up by PC (CPE is a bridge), some users dial-up by
CPE (CPE is a router). But PPP modules running on XP or existing routing CPE
cannot supported IPv6. It is a big problem because that there are more than
90% users using XP or routing CPE.

Best regards,

Yang Guoliang

From: Yiu L. Lee [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2010 8:18 PM
To: YangGL; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [v4tov6transition] Information

Hi Guoliang,

Thanks for sharing the data. This is real life data to give us more
references. I got one question. When you said “Auto dial-up” can’t
support IPv6, do you mean the access network doesn’t support IPv6? Or the
PPP driver running on the hosts can’t support IPv6?

Thanks,
Yiu

Hi all,

Best regards,
Yang Guoliang

  _____

---

From: "Yiu L. Lee" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 23:14:49 -0400

Thanks for the clarification. When I said ³Access Network². I mean the BRAS
to the core router, so this is not an issue. Legacy clients are always a
challenge to transition to v6-only network. Short term we could give the
customers a B4 element router (or dongle). Long term they ³should² upgrade
to v6 capable O/S. But there is a HW cost associated to it. We need to
balance cost of growth and cost of equipments.

B.R.,
Yiu

On 9/8/10 11:06 PM, "YangGL" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> CT¹s access network is layer 2 network. It is unconcerned with IPv6
> theoretically. But some layer 3 ACLs always be deployed on it for the reasons
> of security. Some IPv6 packets will be dropped by mistake. So the access
> network cannot support IPv6 over it directly. Fortunately, all of the
> network isn¹t the reason for the failure.

---

From: Tina TSOU <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 05:26:00 +0200

B. R.
Tina

On Sep 9, 2010, at 5:14 AM, Yiu L. Lee wrote:

> Thanks for the clarification. When I said “Access Network”. I mean  
> the BRAS to the core router,
Usually "Access Network" means BRAS and below. From BRAS to the core  
router, it is called "Aggregation Network".
> so this is not an issue. Legacy clients are always a challenge to  
> transition to v6-only network. Short term we could give the  
> customers a B4 element router (or dongle). Long term they “should”  
> upgrade to v6 capable O/S. But there is a HW cost associated to it.  
> We need to balance cost of growth and cost of equipments.
The transition guide I-D for this use case should reflect this.
>> theoretically. But some layer 3 ACLs always be deployed on it for  
>> the reasons of security. Some IPv6 packets will be dropped by  
>> mistake. So the access network cannot support IPv6 over it  
>> directly. Fortunately, all of the broadband users access the  
>> network by the means of PPPoE dial-up. So access network isn’t the  
>> reason for the failure.
>> In China, some users dial-up by PC (CPE is a bridge), some users  
>> dial-up by CPE (CPE is a router). But PPP modules running on XP or  
>> existing routing CPE cannot supported IPv6. It is a big problem  
>> because that there are more than 90% users using XP or routing CPE.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Yang Guoliang
>>
>>
>> support IPv6, do you mean the access network doesn’t support IPv6?  
>> Or the PPP driver running on the hosts can’t support IPv6?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Yiu
>>
>>
>> 1.     More than 99% internet traffic is generated by laptop users  
>> using EVDO card in China Telecom’s 3G network. Nearly half of  
>> internet traffic is P2P. namely the application model, traffic  
>> model and user behavior in CT’s mobile network are similar with  
>> broadband network.
>>
>> 2.     After upgrading BAS last week, there are 2000 users  
>> translated to dual stack, but just 20 users can obtain an IPv6  
>> address successfully. It is because that some of OS (windows XP)  
>> and CPE ( Auto dial-up) cannot support IPv6 completely.
>>
>> Application, OS and CPE, all are big problems to IPv6 smooth  
>> translation. Mobile network is also not easy.
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Yang Guoliang
>>

---

From: "Lee, Yiu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2010 00:59:25 -0400

Another possible solution is using GI-DS-lite and gives dual stack to the CPE since the access network is PPP encapsulated. 

> 
>> so this is not an issue. Legacy clients are always a challenge to transition to v6-only network. Short term we could give the customers a B4 element router (or dongle). Long term they “should” upgrade to v6 capable O/S. But there is a HW cost associated to it. We need to balance cost of growth and cost of 
>

---

From: Tina TSOU <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2010 07:08:02 +0200

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhou-softwire-ds-lite-p2p-02

Deployment DS-lite in Point-to-Point Access Network
                    draft-zhou-softwire-ds-lite-p2p-02

Abstract

    Gateway-Initiated Dual-Stack lite (GI-DS-lite) is a proposal to
    logically extend existing access tunnels beyond the access gateway  
to
    DS-Lite Address Family Transition Router element (AFTR) using
    softwires with an embedded context identifier.  This memo  
describes a
    deployment model using GI-DS-lite in Point-to-Point access network.

B. R.
Tina

On Sep 9, 2010, at 6:59 AM, Lee, Yiu wrote:

> Another possible solution is using GI-DS-lite and gives dual stack  
> to the CPE since the access network is PPP encapsulated.
>
>>
>>> upgrade to v6 capable O/S. But there is a HW cost associated to  
>>> it. We need to balance cost of growth and cost of
>>