From suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com Wed Feb 8 06:34:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CE4421F869A for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 06:34:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.149 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.149 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.450, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1nTVIiTQfjMd for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 06:34:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB05D21F8607 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 06:34:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from eusaamw0712.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.181]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id q18EY3aE028601 for ; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 08:34:11 -0600 Received: from [142.133.10.98] (147.117.20.214) by smtps-am.internal.ericsson.com (147.117.20.181) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.137.0; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 09:34:04 -0500 Message-ID: <4F3287C1.7020700@ericsson.com> Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 09:33:37 -0500 From: Suresh Krishnan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111124 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Internet Area X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Int-area] Adoption of draft-boucadair-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis as WG draft X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:34:12 -0000 Hi all, There was significant support to adopt this draft as wg item both in the face-to-face meeting in Taipei and on the mailing list. There were some significant privacy concerns raised concerning the draft, and they needed to be addressed. Alissa performed a review and had proposed some text additions and changes to the draft to make it more specific and useful. These changes have been made, and we feel that the draft is ready to be taken up as a wg item. Thanks Suresh & Julien From internet-drafts@ietf.org Wed Feb 8 08:06:52 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6171A21F8739; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 08:06:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.585 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.585 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.014, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id T-P7uGD+YR7s; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 08:06:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD96021F861B; Wed, 8 Feb 2012 08:06:29 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 3.64p1 Message-ID: <20120208160629.19945.39815.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:06:29 -0800 Cc: int-area@ietf.org Subject: [Int-area] I-D Action: draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis-00.txt X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:06:52 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Internet Area Working Group Working G= roup of the IETF. Title : Analysis of Solution Candidates to Reveal a Host Identif= ier in Shared Address Deployments Author(s) : Mohamed Boucadair Joe Touch Pierre Levis Reinaldo Penno Filename : draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis-00.txt Pages : 18 Date : 2012-02-07 This document analyzes a set of solution candidates to mitigate some of the issues encountered when address sharing is used. In particular, this document focuses on means to reveal a host identifier (HOST_ID) when a Carrier Grade NAT (CGN) or application proxies are involved in the path. This host identifier must be unique to each host under the same shared IP address. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis-= 00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis-0= 0.txt From scott.brim@gmail.com Fri Feb 10 06:46:26 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0C1A21F8783 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:46:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lp16AxFRFISb for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:46:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pw0-f44.google.com (mail-pw0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66B2221F878B for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:46:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by pbcwz7 with SMTP id wz7so2595262pbc.31 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:46:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=36mX/dqcuG7KeAbpKnO1daPBWnPfohlvTtXBl+pL+OA=; b=QtBjWiDPVKEdSGEvBQWBBAbIGiUsRbJiMXkUqoILjGR7gNCXmN7heNC3ZZM+4cNqOr T3Bqezsf6iaR5Z2ORS3XpKv4fLAVjGu+dff2MFVRHBuGictDp5UPpufBp2OT07KDZqEn yFK4b4Jj1eZnYdg4AH40ids9AbuH3G5scuHEI= Received: by 10.68.212.130 with SMTP id nk2mr16853385pbc.69.1328885181202; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:46:21 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.67.202 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:46:01 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4F3287C1.7020700@ericsson.com> References: <4F3287C1.7020700@ericsson.com> From: Scott Brim Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:46:01 -0500 Message-ID: To: Suresh Krishnan Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Internet Area Subject: Re: [Int-area] Adoption of draft-boucadair-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis as WG draft X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:46:26 -0000 On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 09:33, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > Hi all, > =A0There was significant support to adopt this draft as wg item both in > the face-to-face meeting in Taipei and on the mailing list. There were > some significant privacy concerns raised concerning the draft, and they > needed to be addressed. Alissa performed a review and had proposed some > text additions and changes to the draft to make it more specific and > useful. These changes have been made, and we feel that the draft is > ready to be taken up as a wg item. > > Thanks > Suresh & Julien It looks like the privacy workshop reference was removed? Since there is still a lot of misunderstanding about privacy in the IETF, and since the text on privacy does not include much explanation, there should be at least one reference so that implementors can understand the point. Scott From mohamed.boucadair@orange.com Fri Feb 10 07:43:13 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9A9C21F86E4 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:43:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.168 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.168 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.080, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xluS5oclakYJ for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:43:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71F4621F86CB for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:43:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.4]) by omfedm13.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 816273243AA; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:43:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from puexch31.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.29]) by omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 67538238055; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:43:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.7]) by puexch31.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.29]) with mapi; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:43:05 +0100 From: To: Scott Brim , Suresh Krishnan Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:43:04 +0100 Thread-Topic: [Int-area] Adoption of draft-boucadair-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis as WG draft Thread-Index: AczoAsytqWEU+bpKQgG4r2BKAaUv6AAB1GdQ Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F35BC477ADFB@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> References: <4F3287C1.7020700@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: fr-FR Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: fr-FR Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-PMX-Version: 5.5.9.395186, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2012.2.10.130318 Cc: Internet Area Subject: Re: [Int-area] Adoption of draft-boucadair-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis as WG draft X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:43:14 -0000 Dear Scott, No problem to add a reference to RFC6462. FWIW, I removed it because it was= not mentioned in the text proposed by A. Cooper. Cheers, Med=20 > -----Message d'origine----- > De : int-area-bounces@ietf.org=20 > [mailto:int-area-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Scott Brim > Envoy=E9 : vendredi 10 f=E9vrier 2012 15:46 > =C0 : Suresh Krishnan > Cc : Internet Area > Objet : Re: [Int-area] Adoption of=20 > draft-boucadair-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis as WG draft >=20 > On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 09:33, Suresh Krishnan > wrote: > > Hi all, > > =A0There was significant support to adopt this draft as wg=20 > item both in > > the face-to-face meeting in Taipei and on the mailing list.=20 > There were > > some significant privacy concerns raised concerning the=20 > draft, and they > > needed to be addressed. Alissa performed a review and had=20 > proposed some > > text additions and changes to the draft to make it more specific and > > useful. These changes have been made, and we feel that the draft is > > ready to be taken up as a wg item. > > > > Thanks > > Suresh & Julien >=20 > It looks like the privacy workshop reference was removed? >=20 > Since there is still a lot of misunderstanding about privacy in the > IETF, and since the text on privacy does not include much explanation, > there should be at least one reference so that implementors can > understand the point. >=20 > Scott > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > Int-area@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > = From suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com Wed Feb 15 13:19:00 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC92121F86A0 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 13:19:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.163 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.163 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.436, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2TvHuBuCWPk8 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 13:19:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from imr3.ericy.com (imr3.ericy.com [198.24.6.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41FDE21E8098 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 13:19:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) by imr3.ericy.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q1FLIrJv017874 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:18:54 -0600 Received: from [147.214.75.203] (147.117.20.214) by smtps-am.internal.ericsson.com (147.117.20.178) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:18:51 -0500 Message-ID: <4F3C211F.5060201@ericsson.com> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:18:23 -0500 From: Suresh Krishnan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111124 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Internet Area X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Int-area] Review of draft-bonica-v6-multihome-02 X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 21:19:01 -0000 Hi authors, I read through this draft and I had a few questions/comments Section 2.2.1: What happens if the multiple CNBs are not of the same size? I believe that the solution will still work, but it would be nice if the example talks about the general case of different CNB sizes (Then the CNBs being the same size will be a specific case). Section 2.2.2: I am entirely unconvinced that the following is true "For any interface, the ratio of upper half to lower half assignments roughly controls the portion of traffic arriving through each upstream provider." Please explain how this works for a host on an inside that initiates connections. (I do see how it works for servers accepting connections from the outside though, perhaps using some form of DNS round robin techniques) Section 2.5: How does the routing inside the site work? In specific, it would be useful to explain how packets from a host with addresses from each block gets to the right translator. i.e. How does a host with a source address in the lower half of the SAB know to send all outgoing packet to NPT#1? If it sends it to NPT#2, uRPF will break on PE#2, right? Future expansion: I think the document should mention something about the sizing the SAB in order to allow future changes. I would assume some sort of safety margin would be useful. The way that it is specified in the document is too rigid. e.g. In the case described in the document, what happens if the site wants to add another upstream provider? Should it renumber? Thanks Suresh From rbonica@juniper.net Fri Feb 17 07:47:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BFFF21F87AB for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 07:47:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.522 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.077, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R0G-aQU2KedH for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 07:47:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from exprod7og108.obsmtp.com (exprod7og108.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.169]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4B4621F87A3 for ; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 07:47:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob108.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKTz52msfWZDxhyngszncLLWh4gf8crtdT@postini.com; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 07:47:39 PST Received: from P-CLDFE01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.59) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 07:47:05 -0800 Received: from p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.24) by p-cldfe01-hq.jnpr.net (172.24.192.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 07:47:05 -0800 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::d0d1:653d:5b91:a123%11]) with mapi; Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:47:04 -0500 From: Ronald Bonica To: "int-area@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:46:59 -0500 Thread-Topic: [Int-area] Review of draft-bonica-v6-multihome-02 Thread-Index: Aczs5ZoOyqmkQwaAQIO+znKDdaiNXAAnuzvA Message-ID: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D766F08AC5@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: f8e27f27-03b2-4c3e-9447-119194e72cb6 Subject: Re: [Int-area] Review of draft-bonica-v6-multihome-02 X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:47:40 -0000 Suresh, Thanks for this thoughtful review. Responses inline: > Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 16:18:23 -0500 > From: Suresh Krishnan > To: Internet Area > Subject: [Int-area] Review of draft-bonica-v6-multihome-02 > Message-ID: <4F3C211F.5060201@ericsson.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"ISO-8859-1" >=20 > Hi authors, > I read through this draft and I had a few questions/comments >=20 > Section 2.2.1: >=20 > What happens if the multiple CNBs are not of the same size? I believe > that the solution will still work, but it would be nice if the example > talks about the general case of different CNB sizes (Then the CNBs > being > the same size will be a specific case). You are absolutely correct! The CNBs don't need to be the same size. Also, = they don't need to be as large as the current version of the drafts says th= at they have to be. I will fix this in the next version of the draft. Look = for a new version in the next few days. >=20 > Section 2.2.2: >=20 > I am entirely unconvinced that the following is true >=20 > "For any interface, the ratio of upper half to lower half assignments > roughly controls the portion of traffic arriving through each upstream > provider." >=20 > Please explain how this works for a host on an inside that initiates > connections. >=20 > (I do see how it works for servers accepting connections from the > outside though, perhaps using some form of DNS round robin techniques) Again, you are absolutely right. The statement above applies only to server= s accepting connections from the outside. When a server initiates a connect= ion, the source address that it chooses determine the path that return traf= fic will traverse. Again, I will fix this in the next version of the draft. >=20 > Section 2.5: >=20 > How does the routing inside the site work? In specific, it would be > useful to explain how packets from a host with addresses from each > block > gets to the right translator. i.e. How does a host with a source > address > in the lower half of the SAB know to send all outgoing packet to NPT#1? > If it sends it to NPT#2, uRPF will break on PE#2, right? Because NPTv6 is stateless, and because all NPTs serving a sight are config= ured identically, a packet can leave the site through any NPT. Egress traff= ic doesn't need to traverse the same NPT as ingress traffic.=20 In a typical environment, both CE routers advertise a default route into th= e site. Outbound traffic finds its way to one CE or the other. If the site = wishes to do something more sophisticated, it can. Whatever the site choose= s to do will work with NPTv6. I will make this clear in the next version of= the draft. >=20 >=20 > Future expansion: >=20 > I think the document should mention something about the sizing the SAB > in order to allow future changes. I would assume some sort of safety > margin would be useful. The way that it is specified in the document is > too rigid. e.g. In the case described in the document, what happens if > the site wants to add another upstream provider? Should it renumber? This is a good idea and a natural consequence of your first comment. I will= tackle this in the next draft version. Thanks again for your thoughtful comments. Ron >=20 > Thanks > Suresh >=20 From wesley.george@twcable.com Tue Feb 21 07:34:31 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EF0E21F864D for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:34:31 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.511 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.048, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HXKNrXN7qpb8 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:34:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from cdpipgw02.twcable.com (cdpipgw02.twcable.com [165.237.59.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F407E21F86E0 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 07:34:23 -0800 (PST) X-SENDER-IP: 10.136.163.12 X-SENDER-REPUTATION: None X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,458,1325480400"; d="scan'208";a="325755440" Received: from unknown (HELO PRVPEXHUB03.corp.twcable.com) ([10.136.163.12]) by cdpipgw02.twcable.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 21 Feb 2012 10:33:46 -0500 Received: from PRVPEXVS03.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.27]) by PRVPEXHUB03.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.12]) with mapi; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:34:22 -0500 From: "George, Wes" To: "int-area@ietf.org" Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:34:21 -0500 Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-george-ipv6-support-01.txt Thread-Index: AczwqvrNyTLh6avFQSC4pXtTSr2DlAAAIk9g Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "draft-george-ipv6-support@tools.ietf.org" Subject: [Int-area] FW: New Version Notification for draft-george-ipv6-support-01.txt X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 15:34:31 -0000 VGhpcyBpcyBhIHNpZ25pZmljYW50IHVwZGF0ZSBvZiB0aGlzIEJDUCBkcmFmdCBmcm9tIGl0cyBp bml0aWFsIHZlcnNpb24uIEl0cyBjb21wYW5pb24gZHJhZnQgd2FzIGludGFyZWEtaXB2Ni1yZXF1 aXJlZCwgc28gd2UgdGhvdWdodCB0aGF0IHRoaXMgV0cgbWlnaHQgYmUgYSBnb29kIHBsYWNlIHRv IHN0YXJ0IGRpc2N1c3Npb24gb24gdGhpcyBkcmFmdC4gQWRkaXRpb25hbGx5LCB0aGUgYXV0aG9y cyB0b29rIGEgbG90IG9mIGlkZWFzIGZyb20gdGhlIGRpc2N1c3Npb24gdGhhdCBoYXBwZW5lZCBk dXJpbmcgUmFuZHksIE1hcmssIGFuZCBEYW4ncyBwcmVzZW50YXRpb24gaW4gSW50QXJlYSBpbiBU YWlwZWkgYW5kIGluY29ycG9yYXRlZCBpdCBpbnRvIHRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQsIHNpbmNlIGEgbG90 IG9mIHRoYXQgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBmb2N1c2VkIG9uIHdoYXQgd2Ugc2hvdWxkIChhbmQgbW9yZSBp bXBvcnRhbnRseSwgc2hvdWxkIG5vdCkgYmUgd29ya2luZyBvbiBhcyBpdCByZWxhdGVzIHRvIElQ djQgdG8gSVB2NiB0cmFuc2l0aW9uIHdpdGhpbiB0aGUgSUVURi4NCg0KaHR0cDovL3Rvb2xzLmll dGYub3JnL2h0bWwvZHJhZnQtZ2VvcmdlLWlwdjYtc3VwcG9ydC0wMQ0KDQpXZSdkIGFwcHJlY2lh dGUgZmVlZGJhY2suIEEgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiBvZiB0aGUgZHJhZnQgaW4gUGFyaXMgbWlnaHQgYmUg aGVscGZ1bC4gVGhlIGF1dGhvcnMgYXJlIHdpbGxpbmcgdG8gcHJlc2VudCBpZiB0aGUgV0cgYW5k IGNoYWlycyB3b3VsZCBsaWtlIHVzIHRvIGRvIHNvIGFuZCB0aGVyZSBpcyBhZ2VuZGEgdGltZSBh dmFpbGFibGUuDQoNClRoYW5rcw0KV2VzIEdlb3JnZQ0KDQoNCi0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2Fn ZS0tLS0tDQpGcm9tOiBpbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHNAaWV0Zi5vcmcgW21haWx0bzppbnRlcm5ldC1k cmFmdHNAaWV0Zi5vcmddDQpTZW50OiBUdWVzZGF5LCBGZWJydWFyeSAyMSwgMjAxMiAxMDoxMSBB TQ0KVG86IEdlb3JnZSwgV2VzDQpDYzogSG93YXJkLCBMZWU7IERvbmxleSwgQ2hyaXMgKENhYmxl IExhYnMpOyBHZW9yZ2UsIFdlcw0KU3ViamVjdDogTmV3IFZlcnNpb24gTm90aWZpY2F0aW9uIGZv ciBkcmFmdC1nZW9yZ2UtaXB2Ni1zdXBwb3J0LTAxLnR4dA0KDQpBIG5ldyB2ZXJzaW9uIG9mIEkt RCwgZHJhZnQtZ2VvcmdlLWlwdjYtc3VwcG9ydC0wMS50eHQgaGFzIGJlZW4gc3VjY2Vzc2Z1bGx5 IHN1Ym1pdHRlZCBieSBXZXNsZXkgR2VvcmdlIGFuZCBwb3N0ZWQgdG8gdGhlIElFVEYgcmVwb3Np dG9yeS4NCg0KRmlsZW5hbWU6ICAgICAgICBkcmFmdC1nZW9yZ2UtaXB2Ni1zdXBwb3J0DQpSZXZp c2lvbjogICAgICAgIDAxDQpUaXRsZTogICAgICAgICAgIElQdjYgU3VwcG9ydCBXaXRoaW4gSUVU RiB3b3JrDQpDcmVhdGlvbiBkYXRlOiAgIDIwMTItMDItMjENCldHIElEOiAgICAgICAgICAgSW5k aXZpZHVhbCBTdWJtaXNzaW9uDQpOdW1iZXIgb2YgcGFnZXM6IDgNCg0KQWJzdHJhY3Q6DQogICBU aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IHJlY29tbWVuZHMgdGhhdCBJRVRGIGZvcm1hbGx5IHJlcXVpcmUgaXRzIHN0 YW5kYXJkcw0KICAgd29yayB0byBiZSBJUCB2ZXJzaW9uIGFnbm9zdGljIG9yIHRvIGV4cGxpY2l0 bHkgaW5jbHVkZSBzdXBwb3J0IGZvcg0KICAgSVB2Niwgd2l0aCBzb21lIGV4Y2VwdGlvbnMuICBJ dCByZWNvbW1lbmRzIHRoYXQgZnV0dXJlIElQdjQgd29yayBiZQ0KICAgbGltaXRlZCB0byBzb2x2 aW5nIGRvY3VtZW50ZWQgb3BlcmF0aW9uYWwgcHJvYmxlbXMgaWRlbnRpZmllZCB0aHJvdWdoDQog ICBkZXBsb3ltZW50IGV4cGVyaWVuY2UuDQoNCg0KDQoNClRoZSBJRVRGIFNlY3JldGFyaWF0DQoN ClRoaXMgRS1tYWlsIGFuZCBhbnkgb2YgaXRzIGF0dGFjaG1lbnRzIG1heSBjb250YWluIFRpbWUg V2FybmVyIENhYmxlIHByb3ByaWV0YXJ5IGluZm9ybWF0aW9uLCB3aGljaCBpcyBwcml2aWxlZ2Vk LCBjb25maWRlbnRpYWwsIG9yIHN1YmplY3QgdG8gY29weXJpZ2h0IGJlbG9uZ2luZyB0byBUaW1l IFdhcm5lciBDYWJsZS4gVGhpcyBFLW1haWwgaXMgaW50ZW5kZWQgc29sZWx5IGZvciB0aGUgdXNl IG9mIHRoZSBpbmRpdmlkdWFsIG9yIGVudGl0eSB0byB3aGljaCBpdCBpcyBhZGRyZXNzZWQuIElm IHlvdSBhcmUgbm90IHRoZSBpbnRlbmRlZCByZWNpcGllbnQgb2YgdGhpcyBFLW1haWwsIHlvdSBh cmUgaGVyZWJ5IG5vdGlmaWVkIHRoYXQgYW55IGRpc3NlbWluYXRpb24sIGRpc3RyaWJ1dGlvbiwg Y29weWluZywgb3IgYWN0aW9uIHRha2VuIGluIHJlbGF0aW9uIHRvIHRoZSBjb250ZW50cyBvZiBh bmQgYXR0YWNobWVudHMgdG8gdGhpcyBFLW1haWwgaXMgc3RyaWN0bHkgcHJvaGliaXRlZCBhbmQg bWF5IGJlIHVubGF3ZnVsLiBJZiB5b3UgaGF2ZSByZWNlaXZlZCB0aGlzIEUtbWFpbCBpbiBlcnJv ciwgcGxlYXNlIG5vdGlmeSB0aGUgc2VuZGVyIGltbWVkaWF0ZWx5IGFuZCBwZXJtYW5lbnRseSBk ZWxldGUgdGhlIG9yaWdpbmFsIGFuZCBhbnkgY29weSBvZiB0aGlzIEUtbWFpbCBhbmQgYW55IHBy aW50b3V0Lg0K From suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com Tue Feb 21 16:35:55 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 534BA21E804C for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:35:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.177 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.177 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.422, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mXTFPrFPchJt for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:35:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA62421E8048 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:35:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from eusaamw0712.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.181]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id q1M0ZnXH013760 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:35:51 -0600 Received: from [142.133.10.98] (147.117.20.214) by smtps-am.internal.ericsson.com (147.117.20.181) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:35:46 -0500 Message-ID: <4F443861.8050708@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:35:45 -0500 From: Suresh Krishnan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "int-area@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Int-area] Call for agenda items X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 00:35:55 -0000 Hi all, The intarea WG will be meeting in Paris (we have requested a 2 hour slot) and we are in the process of setting the agenda. Please send us your request for slots detailing * Name of the draft * Short description of why you think the item needs to be discussed in the intarea meeting * Whether the draft has already been presented or will be presented in some other wg/bof. Thanks Julien and Suresh From rbonica@juniper.net Thu Feb 23 13:26:55 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8002421F8870 for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:26:55 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.517 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.517 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.082, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yR7MsTtMcQLs for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:26:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from exprod7og117.obsmtp.com (exprod7og117.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D11821F872B for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:26:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob117.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT0avHuRm/L1k/tUKdLp74qR3KQtjPbrS@postini.com; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:26:54 PST Received: from P-CLDFE01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.59) by P-EMHUB02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:26:53 -0800 Received: from p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net (172.28.145.24) by p-cldfe01-hq.jnpr.net (172.24.192.59) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:26:53 -0800 Received: from EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net ([fe80::1914:3299:33d9:e43b]) by p-emfe01-wf.jnpr.net ([fe80::d0d1:653d:5b91:a123%11]) with mapi; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:26:52 -0500 From: Ronald Bonica To: "int-area@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 16:26:51 -0500 Thread-Topic: [Int-area] Call for agenda items Thread-Index: AczxnJakaOXI4GQASVmoq423f2vDjQA1F/uQ Message-ID: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D7674C070E@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e4081efb-6d29-443c-8708-750833aec629 Subject: Re: [Int-area] Call for agenda items X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:26:55 -0000 Hello, Could I ask for 20 minutes to present draft-bonica-v6-multihome. I think th= at this draft should be discussed because it, along with RFC 6296, offers a= opportunity for operators to prevent routing table bloat in the emerging I= Pv6 network. This draft has never been presented to any other WG and will not be present= ed to any other WG at IETF 83. Ron > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:35:45 -0500 > From: Suresh Krishnan > To: "int-area@ietf.org" > Subject: [Int-area] Call for agenda items > Message-ID: <4F443861.8050708@ericsson.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"ISO-8859-1"; format=3Dflowed >=20 > Hi all, > The intarea WG will be meeting in Paris (we have requested a 2 hour > slot) and we are in the process of setting the agenda. Please send us > your request for slots detailing >=20 > * Name of the draft > * Short description of why you think the item needs to be discussed in > the intarea meeting > * Whether the draft has already been presented or will be presented in > some other wg/bof. >=20 > Thanks > Julien and Suresh >=20 From brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Thu Feb 23 13:35:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5FB821F88A9 for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:35:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.509 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.509 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.090, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 51twu5fD8CB3 for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:35:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ee0-f44.google.com (mail-ee0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBCC721F8896 for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:35:33 -0800 (PST) Received: by eekc41 with SMTP id c41so675040eek.31 for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:35:32 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com designates 10.213.104.140 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.213.104.140; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com designates 10.213.104.140 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.213.104.140]) by 10.213.104.140 with SMTP id p12mr9986ebo.111.1330032932857 (num_hops = 1); Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:35:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=xpLBevCOaQ2T2m4NYMKkdAJlAB6uAuH/w8eUkcIbUK0=; b=CNaO2SHBxorlM9uWKmwMpwJ1HhfUcCtVrWd6iLmVQYyNQDWRtoB7NslAkqZBt9wJUI rroR9quLh79FCJw1QlJw4vNtRhykdvxBq/GCYgEGQaYs2KlVVdurh+U4oP0YGgUrZxjy P/RQ6POHy/wUK6jStaEw9Js94d7ywTe2lRUwQ= Received: by 10.213.104.140 with SMTP id p12mr7515ebo.111.1330032932704; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:35:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.1.1.4] ([121.98.251.219]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n52sm9860751eea.5.2012.02.23.13.35.30 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:35:32 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F46B11C.4000107@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:35:24 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ronald Bonica References: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D7674C070E@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> In-Reply-To: <13205C286662DE4387D9AF3AC30EF456D7674C070E@EMBX01-WF.jnpr.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "int-area@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Int-area] Call for agenda items X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:35:40 -0000 On 2012-02-24 10:26, Ronald Bonica wrote: > Hello, > > Could I ask for 20 minutes to present draft-bonica-v6-multihome. I think that this draft should be discussed because it, along with RFC 6296, offers a opportunity for operators to prevent routing table bloat in the emerging IPv6 network. > > This draft has never been presented to any other WG and will not be presented to any other WG at IETF 83. I'm all for discussion, but I hope that people realise that there is another draft that is very much part of the same debate: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat. Brian > Ron > > >> Message: 1 >> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 19:35:45 -0500 >> From: Suresh Krishnan >> To: "int-area@ietf.org" >> Subject: [Int-area] Call for agenda items >> Message-ID: <4F443861.8050708@ericsson.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed >> >> Hi all, >> The intarea WG will be meeting in Paris (we have requested a 2 hour >> slot) and we are in the process of setting the agenda. Please send us >> your request for slots detailing >> >> * Name of the draft >> * Short description of why you think the item needs to be discussed in >> the intarea meeting >> * Whether the draft has already been presented or will be presented in >> some other wg/bof. >> >> Thanks >> Julien and Suresh >> > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > Int-area@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > From brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Thu Feb 23 13:42:42 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3314421F87AE for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:42:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.21 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.211, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id umHnU8jnwDko for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:42:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ee0-f44.google.com (mail-ee0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F317921F87AA for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:42:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by eekc41 with SMTP id c41so676625eek.31 for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:42:40 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com designates 10.14.203.200 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.14.203.200; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com designates 10.14.203.200 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.14.203.200]) by 10.14.203.200 with SMTP id f48mr1820700eeo.30.1330033360173 (num_hops = 1); Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:42:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=0wjPri9JulHSkli/IntdSQuHOSTG7LU7i6xwnhC7waY=; b=NR6i/G7z/f4UgT3EAgiIPN8MBMnoxAAgSWcvFHhzbne1t82DpwKyo8g1j81vfRFwzi MpgZUw1beOsPebJFXpFi9xaGm1cbqWxadx6pTBR5nJomwdrAfQVAVdpbL64v9SDO6PdW O2OQnSnbl85uc5HjntG2Ms4arfivPCcL31qm4= Received: by 10.14.203.200 with SMTP id f48mr1421080eeo.30.1330033360006; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:42:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.1.1.4] ([121.98.251.219]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o49sm9909871eeb.7.2012.02.23.13.42.36 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 23 Feb 2012 13:42:39 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F46B2C7.9010607@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:42:31 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Suresh Krishnan References: <4F443861.8050708@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <4F443861.8050708@ericsson.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "int-area@ietf.org" , Willy Tarreau , Sheng Jiang Subject: Re: [Int-area] Call for agenda items X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 21:42:42 -0000 I'd like to suggest an update on draft-carpenter-v6ops-label-balance-01 This version is a major update since the version presented previously, with a new author (Willy Tarreau), who is a practioner with a lot of experience deploying server load balancing. This is a cross-WG and even cross-area topic, so it seems to fit in intarea. It may also be on the v6ops agenda but that is uncertain right now. BTW, I will not be in Paris, but both the co-authors will be there. Regards Brian Carpenter On 2012-02-22 13:35, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > Hi all, > The intarea WG will be meeting in Paris (we have requested a 2 hour > slot) and we are in the process of setting the agenda. Please send us > your request for slots detailing > > * Name of the draft > * Short description of why you think the item needs to be discussed in > the intarea meeting > * Whether the draft has already been presented or will be presented in > some other wg/bof. > > Thanks > Julien and Suresh > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > Int-area@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > From wesley.george@twcable.com Fri Feb 24 05:37:13 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EC1D21F879D for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 05:37:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.008 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.008 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.455, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N8dLmrR6KRAA for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 05:37:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from cdpipgw01.twcable.com (cdpipgw01.twcable.com [165.237.59.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B419821F86E8 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 05:37:12 -0800 (PST) X-SENDER-IP: 10.136.163.15 X-SENDER-REPUTATION: None X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,475,1325480400"; d="scan'208";a="343861417" Received: from unknown (HELO PRVPEXHUB06.corp.twcable.com) ([10.136.163.15]) by cdpipgw01.twcable.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 24 Feb 2012 08:36:49 -0500 Received: from PRVPEXVS03.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.27]) by PRVPEXHUB06.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.15]) with mapi; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 08:37:11 -0500 From: "George, Wes" To: Suresh Krishnan , "int-area@ietf.org" Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 08:37:11 -0500 Thread-Topic: [Int-area] Call for agenda items Thread-Index: Aczw+fOUFEfD4bshSGmpFd5TLazYPgB/xr9g Message-ID: References: <4F443861.8050708@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <4F443861.8050708@ericsson.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Int-area] Call for agenda items X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:37:13 -0000 Suresh - I posted a separate message about draft-george-ipv6-support-01 This currently has no home, and we're open to being told it should be discu= ssed somewhere else, but since it was inspired in part by the discussion th= at we had in Taipei about IPv6 transition/IPv4 Life support, we thought it = appropriate to start the discussion here. There's not much for us to present, but there are some discussion points - = perhaps 15 minutes, with only about 5 of that allocated to the authors talk= ing. Thanks, Wes George > -----Original Message----- > From: int-area-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:int-area-bounces@ietf.org] On Beh= alf > Of Suresh Krishnan > Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 7:36 PM > To: int-area@ietf.org > Subject: [Int-area] Call for agenda items > > Hi all, > The intarea WG will be meeting in Paris (we have requested a 2 hour > slot) and we are in the process of setting the agenda. Please send us > your request for slots detailing > > * Name of the draft > * Short description of why you think the item needs to be discussed in > the intarea meeting > * Whether the draft has already been presented or will be presented in > some other wg/bof. > > Thanks > Julien and Suresh > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > Int-area@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable propri= etary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyrig= ht belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the u= se of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the= intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissem= ination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents= of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawf= ul. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender imm= ediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail an= d any printout. From sarikaya2012@gmail.com Fri Feb 24 08:14:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2393821F8673 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 08:14:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.506 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.506 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.093, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VeyZmB5eCVA2 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 08:14:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEAB821F883A for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 08:14:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by yenm3 with SMTP id m3so1341530yen.31 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 08:14:12 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of sarikaya2012@gmail.com designates 10.236.191.134 as permitted sender) client-ip=10.236.191.134; Authentication-Results: mr.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of sarikaya2012@gmail.com designates 10.236.191.134 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=sarikaya2012@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=sarikaya2012@gmail.com Received: from mr.google.com ([10.236.191.134]) by 10.236.191.134 with SMTP id g6mr5519574yhn.95.1330100052032 (num_hops = 1); Fri, 24 Feb 2012 08:14:12 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=SzSF7tKlwWdCnLObU7bz3NTrD+84Jbmd+wnrXBZRd2c=; b=KsXH7q/8kcFCjjv1In1Wq57aJIkUMREx0vySWwtpmZOOLOVcRSsnWY0c2M4jxyQS5k g5vW2+1ysh/DG7DBR9wmyLDeV5Ip6uIG09yuksbYA6q3t7AgAQ93eu1Yu+K82gKbZwUB D6Tekdwv437DErRRdvKQ6/sgrJyZcMSjdmaqE= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.191.134 with SMTP id g6mr4237851yhn.95.1330100051947; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 08:14:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.236.9.73 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Feb 2012 08:14:11 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4F443861.8050708@ericsson.com> References: <4F443861.8050708@ericsson.com> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:14:11 -0600 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: Suresh Krishnan Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "int-area@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Int-area] Call for agenda items X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:14:15 -0000 Hi Suresh, I would like to ask for a 20-minute slot to present Fixed Mobile Convergence (FMC) Problem Statement draft. The draft has not yet been submitted but it will be sometime next week. Regards, Behcet On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > Hi all, > =A0The intarea WG will be meeting in Paris (we have requested a 2 hour > slot) and we are in the process of setting the agenda. Please send us > your request for slots detailing > > * Name of the draft > * Short description of why you think the item needs to be discussed in th= e > intarea meeting > * Whether the draft has already been presented or will be presented in so= me > other wg/bof. > > Thanks > Julien and Suresh > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > Int-area@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area From K.Fleischhauer@telekom.de Tue Feb 28 13:13:56 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A83721E805A for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 13:13:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2xK6nyi5YF4c for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 13:13:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from tcmail83.telekom.de (tcmail83.telekom.de [62.225.183.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1518B21E8053 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 13:13:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from he111630.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.22]) by tcmail81.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 28 Feb 2012 22:13:52 +0100 Received: from HE111648.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([169.254.5.9]) by HE111630.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Tue, 28 Feb 2012 22:13:52 +0100 From: To: Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 22:13:52 +0100 Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-fleischhauer-ipv4-addr-saving-02.txt Thread-Index: Acz2WPbM6LFsDYCcT8eYHN+ErCzVwAAAQvTQ Message-ID: <580BEA5E3B99744AB1F5BFF5E9A3C67D139FDE652B@HE111648.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: de-DE X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com Subject: [Int-area] WG: New Version Notification for draft-fleischhauer-ipv4-addr-saving-02.txt X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 21:13:56 -0000 Dear all, we have just uploaded version 02 of draft-fleischhauer-ipv4-addr-saving http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-fleischhauer-ipv4-addr-saving-02.txt Based on feedback from this and the PPPEXT-WG list, bilateral discussions a= s well practical experience in testing (Yes, there is running code availabl= e :) ) the document contains the following major changes: 1. New chapter "2.1. Illustrative service provider use case" - describes a typical use case 2. Modification of "Figure 1: PPP Dual-Stack architecture" - the CPE/CER is now divided in 3 functional parts - the text in chapter 2.2 reflects this changes 3. New chapter "4. Potential for optimization" - describes options to increase the efficiency and success of the m= echanism @Tina, Vernon, Joel, Alan & Wes: We hope that the new draft reflects completely your comments and suggestion= s? We'd appreciate any further feedback. A discussion of the draft in Paris might be helpful. Best Olaf & Karsten Olaf Bonne=DF Karsten Fleischhauer > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- > Von: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Februar 2012 21:39 > An: Fleischhauer, Karsten > Cc: Bonne=DF, Olaf > Betreff: New Version Notification for > draft-fleischhauer-ipv4-addr-saving-02.txt > > A new version of I-D, > draft-fleischhauer-ipv4-addr-saving-02.txt has been > successfully submitted by Karsten Fleischhauer and posted to > the IETF repository. > > Filename: draft-fleischhauer-ipv4-addr-saving > Revision: 02 > Title: On demand IPv4 address provisioning in > Dual-Stack PPP deployment scenarios > Creation date: 2012-02-28 > WG ID: Individual Submission > Number of pages: 18 > > Abstract: > Today the Dual-Stack approach is the most straightforward and the > most common way for introducing IPv6 into existing systems and > networks. However a typical drawback of implementing Dual-Stack is > that each node will still require at least one IPv4 > address. Hence, > solely deploying Dual-Stack does not provide a sufficient > solution to > the IPv4 address exhaustion problem. Assuming a situation > where most > of the IP communication (e.g. always-on, VoIP etc.) can be provided > via IPv6, the usage of public IPv4 addresses can significantly be > reduced and the unused public IPv4 addresses can under certain > circumstances be returned to the public IPv4 address pool of the > service provider. New Dual-Stack enabled services can be > introduced > without increasing the public IPv4 address demand, when > IPv6 will be > the preferred network layer protocol. This document > describes such a > solution in a Dual-Stack PPP session network scenario and explains > the protocol mechanisms which are used. > > > > > > The IETF Secretariat > From Tina.Tsou.Zouting@huawei.com Wed Feb 29 16:35:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: int-area@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EB8A21E8019 for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:35:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.451 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.451 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.148, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ydv89qvAkDmO for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:35:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com (szxga04-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C55C721F85A4 for ; Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:35:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0M060020WKA8PL@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for int-area@ietf.org; Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:34:56 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0M06005IMKA2V4@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for int-area@ietf.org; Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:34:56 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxeml202-edg.china.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA) with ESMTP id AHM86887; Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:34:55 +0800 Received: from SZXEML429-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.72.61.37) by szxeml202-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:34:46 +0800 Received: from SZXEML526-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.28]) by SZXEML429-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.72.61.37]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Thu, 01 Mar 2012 08:34:46 +0800 Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 00:34:45 +0000 From: Tina TSOU In-reply-to: <580BEA5E3B99744AB1F5BFF5E9A3C67D139FDE652B@HE111648.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> X-Originating-IP: [10.193.34.156] To: "K.Fleischhauer@telekom.de" , "int-area@ietf.org" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-language: en-US Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Thread-topic: New Version Notification for draft-fleischhauer-ipv4-addr-saving-02.txt Thread-index: Acz2WPbM6LFsDYCcT8eYHN+ErCzVwAAAQvTQADo5DkA= X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected References: <580BEA5E3B99744AB1F5BFF5E9A3C67D139FDE652B@HE111648.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> Cc: "vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com" Subject: Re: [Int-area] New Version Notification for draft-fleischhauer-ipv4-addr-saving-02.txt X-BeenThere: int-area@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Internet Area Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 00:35:15 -0000 Olaf & Karsten, Yes the draft does include the service provider use case in a newly added s= ection 2.1. My comments and suggestions are solved. Thank you for your good work. Tina > -----Original Message----- > From: K.Fleischhauer@telekom.de [mailto:K.Fleischhauer@telekom.de] > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 1:14 PM > To: int-area@ietf.org > Cc: Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de; vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com; Tina TSOU; > jmh@joelhalpern.com; wesley.george@twcable.com; adurand@juniper.net > Subject: WG: New Version Notification for draft-fleischhauer-ipv4-addr- > saving-02.txt >=20 >=20 > Dear all, >=20 > we have just uploaded version 02 of draft-fleischhauer-ipv4-addr-saving > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-fleischhauer-ipv4-addr-saving-02.txt >=20 >=20 > Based on feedback from this and the PPPEXT-WG list, bilateral discussions > as well practical experience in testing (Yes, there is running code > available :) ) > the document contains the following major changes: >=20 > 1. New chapter "2.1. Illustrative service provider use case" > - describes a typical use case >=20 > 2. Modification of "Figure 1: PPP Dual-Stack architecture" > - the CPE/CER is now divided in 3 functional parts > - the text in chapter 2.2 reflects this changes >=20 > 3. New chapter "4. Potential for optimization" > - describes options to increase the efficiency and success of the > mechanism >=20 >=20 > @Tina, Vernon, Joel, Alan & Wes: > We hope that the new draft reflects completely your comments and > suggestions? >=20 >=20 > We'd appreciate any further feedback. > A discussion of the draft in Paris might be helpful. >=20 >=20 > Best >=20 > Olaf & Karsten >=20 > Olaf Bonne=DF > Karsten Fleischhauer >=20 >=20 > > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org] > > Gesendet: Dienstag, 28. Februar 2012 21:39 > > An: Fleischhauer, Karsten > > Cc: Bonne=DF, Olaf > > Betreff: New Version Notification for > > draft-fleischhauer-ipv4-addr-saving-02.txt > > > > A new version of I-D, > > draft-fleischhauer-ipv4-addr-saving-02.txt has been > > successfully submitted by Karsten Fleischhauer and posted to > > the IETF repository. > > > > Filename: draft-fleischhauer-ipv4-addr-saving > > Revision: 02 > > Title: On demand IPv4 address provisioning in > > Dual-Stack PPP deployment scenarios > > Creation date: 2012-02-28 > > WG ID: Individual Submission > > Number of pages: 18 > > > > Abstract: > > Today the Dual-Stack approach is the most straightforward and the > > most common way for introducing IPv6 into existing systems and > > networks. However a typical drawback of implementing Dual-Stack is > > that each node will still require at least one IPv4 > > address. Hence, > > solely deploying Dual-Stack does not provide a sufficient > > solution to > > the IPv4 address exhaustion problem. Assuming a situation > > where most > > of the IP communication (e.g. always-on, VoIP etc.) can be provided > > via IPv6, the usage of public IPv4 addresses can significantly be > > reduced and the unused public IPv4 addresses can under certain > > circumstances be returned to the public IPv4 address pool of the > > service provider. New Dual-Stack enabled services can be > > introduced > > without increasing the public IPv4 address demand, when > > IPv6 will be > > the preferred network layer protocol. This document > > describes such a > > solution in a Dual-Stack PPP session network scenario and explains > > the protocol mechanisms which are used. > > > > > > > > > > > > The IETF Secretariat > >