Subject: [Softwires] Last Call: <draft-ietf-softwire-map-t-08.txt> (Mapping of Address and Port using Translation (MAP-T)) to Experimental RFC

From: "Gottlieb, Jordan J" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 15:44:05 -0600

To whom it may concern,

Please consider my comments in support of draft-ietf-softwire-map-t-08.txt as part of your deliberation process.  The characteristics of interest to me and my organization are as follows:

Desirable characteristics of MAP-T that are common with MAP-E and in some cases other softwire technologies:

-The ability to support asymmetrical routing through the Border Relays

-The ability to support  full or shared IPv4 address allocation

-The ability to retain NAPT functionality at the customer edge

-The compatibility with existing facilities for customer edge provisioning

-The elimination of overhead associated with maintaining state at the Border Relays

-Does not require significant augmentation of existing logging facilities for the purpose of complying with existing lawful intercept requests

Desirable Characteristics unique to MAP-T (and 4RD) and not supported by MAP-E

-The ability to deploy IPv4-mapped IPv6 addressed servers/services that support IPv4 customer endpoints

-The ability to deploy access control and classifiers at layer-4

-The ability to use existing Deep Packet Inspection facilities

-Other forwarding capabilities inherent to the use of a BR prefix as opposed to a BR address

Our reservations with 4RD which shares many of the characteristics of MAP-T revolve around the additional complexity involved with this technology.  We believe that the benefits gained from the added level of IPv4 transparency are not outweighed by the implementation and operational overhead.

Sincerely,

Jordan

Jordan Gottlieb | Principal Engineer |  303 323 6081
8100 East Maplewood Ave., Suite 150 | Greenwood Village, CO 80111