[no subject]

[owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org]

8Q1oNEuK+wx1ShW9k2wzIO32+T/+u8iPv6ECmt+c9Rrf1e6T9mM8E9Y1TIJNbgOsb+PF
         5KmkVdrE+9iZgY1FEbOwKnpAP9z0bEZiOPkbg=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc
         :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer;
        b=S3uvG2+rNk0+ylgW2JXouxGgbWfvK8cpdZpqLu31rSdJDEBhvWEa3EAVmY3i79MOQD

uEE5DGS5mU8DCBUHam7R0U9x9Ze8Yo63LsbJqxoESixISJ0rqBoqt5vKpl+9hA5Z74wA
         2fVW7lRrmKQypQ+GBQlUVgmsl23Y3zNGOIIMQ=
Received: by 10.142.248.9 with SMTP id v9mr7319886wfh.250.1284968544838;
        Mon, 20 Sep 2010 00:42:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.171.210] ([113.28.26.49])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v6sm816061wfg.15.2010.09.20.00.42.21
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5);
        Mon, 20 Sep 2010 00:42:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLC
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Satoru Matsushima <satoru.matsushima@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <6E4969D65A8E834A89C62CB8CD09E82901366224@CI-EXMB-11V.bb.local>
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 16:42:18 +0900
Cc: Satoru Matsushima <satoru.matsushima@gmail.com>,
 Yiu_Lee@Cable.Comcast.com,
 kurtis@kurtis.pp.se,
 v6ops@ops.ietf.org,
 "satoru.matsushima@tm.softbank.co.jp>"
<satoru.matsushima@tm.softbank.co.jp>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BD50A115-653F-47C5-8DE2-312A1C87770E@gmail.com>
References: <6E4969D65A8E834A89C62CB8CD09E82901366224@CI-EXMB-11V.bb.local>
To: v4tov6transition@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081)

Yiu, Tina, and all,

I'm sorry for the delay.
Here is the summary of press release contents from Japanese ISPs. I hope =
that it could be helpful=20
for tomorrow webex discussion.

o They had co-worked to find what most efficient solution for IPv4 =
service over native IPv6 network.
o The background is that they are going to provide IPv6 service from =
2011, but they also need to=20
   provide IPv4 service as well.
o Significant requirements for the solution are:

  1. Sharing a IPv4 address among many of customers with highest cost =
efficiency
     -> The analogy of SAM/4rd is as same as 6rd, it could be expected =
that high cost efficiency with=20
        stateless operation. NAT state only exist on the CPE side.

  2. As much as simple provisioning and configuration
     -> CPE can automatically configure its IPv4 address from delegated =
IPv6 prefix.

  3. Optimized routing path for IPv4 service on the native IPv6 network =
(need mesh capability)
     -> SAM/4rd allow CPE to CPE packet flow on optimized routing path =
in the IPv6 network.

Since 4rd (IPv4 residual deployment), which is a part of IPv4 over IPv6 =
scenario of SAM
(draft-despres-softwire-sam) satisfy these requirements, the ISPs intent =
to adopt SAM/4rd=20
for their IPv4 solution.


Best regards,

--
Satoru Matsushima


On 2010/09/02, at 15:21, <satoru.matsushima@tm.softbank.co.jp> =
<satoru.matsushima@tm.softbank.co.jp> wrote:

> Hi Yiu,
>=20
>> Hi Satoru,
>>=20
>> I assume most people on the list don't read Japanese.
>=20
> Right.
>=20
>> If you can summarize the press release to us, it will be much =
appreciated.
>=20
> Yes, I'll summarize it in English.
>=20
>=20
> Best regards,
>=20
>=20
> --
> Satoru Matsushima
> _______________________________________________
> v4tov6transition mailing list
> v4tov6transition@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4tov6transition