Naoki, MAP et al already supports: - private IPv4 addresses - full IPv4 address or IPv4 prefix (i.e. does not need NAT44 on the CE) - does mesh mode
I'm not quite sure I understand what's left of the problem space to solve. Best regards, Ole > On 18 Feb 2016, at 07:04, Naoki Matsuhira <[email protected]> wrote: > > Wes, > > I agree the necessity of problem statement. The draft of problem > statement must require before next Buenos Aires meeting ? or continue > on this mailing list? > > I commented in-line below focused only the point that I think. > > Thank you your advice that reorganizing to one or two drafts. I have my > own reason why 6 drafts exists, however I would like to think at the > time of future update. > > (2016/02/17 3:41), George, Wes wrote: >> Below inline with WG] >> >> On 2/16/16, 5:05 AM, "Naoki Matsuhira"<[email protected]> wrote: >> >> WG] it's not totally clear from the above, but it sounds like you're >> proposing a method to connect IPv4-only islands over an IPv6-only network. >> There are multiple existing solutions for this, including GRE or IPv4 in >> IPv6 tunnels, MPLS encapsulation (L2/L3 VPNs), etc. The IETF has also >> identified a need for "4PE", which is the IPv4 over IPv6 version of >> RFC4798 (6PE) to do these sorts of island connections in a way that >> involves less manual provisioning of tunnels. (see RFC 7439 section 3.3.2) > > Basically yes. so I think GRE and IPv4 in IPv6 tunnel are the > comparison. These technology needs N^2 configuration to connect N with > fullmesh. For example, in enterprise network, there are dual stack > backbone and many dual stack stub network, and if backbone dual stack > network operation move to IPv6 only operation, M46E-FP should contribute. > > >> WG] your proposal is very light on details, so it is difficult to evaluate >> its applicability. Your mention of plane IDs makes me think that you're >> describing a way to disambiguate overlapping private address space, >> similar to the VPNv4 address used in RFC4364, which is why I mentioned 4PE >> above. > > I'm sorry for may poor description capability. > We already have a running code and demonstrate at WIDE camp, Interop > tokyo (3 years) , JGN-plus testbed, Strabed testbed. These technologies > already work. I think draft can more refined on revision. > > Thanks, > > Naoki > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > sunset4 mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ sunset4 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
