From ipv6-dir-bounces@ietf.org Tue Nov 08 13:26:11 2005 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EZYAd-00066a-T7; Tue, 08 Nov 2005 13:26:11 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EZXl3-0008WP-N4 for ipv6-dir@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Nov 2005 12:59:45 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA22301 for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 12:59:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from dhost002-46.dex002.intermedia.net ([64.78.21.140]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EZY0p-0003AV-Mx for ipv6-dir@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Nov 2005 13:16:04 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 09:59:23 -0800 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: ITU-T Q.9/13 IPv6 concerns Thread-Index: AcXkjeNqAj0HgahMRy6ulEoGD67pPAAAAlew From: "Margaret Wasserman" To: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0ddefe323dd869ab027dbfff7eff0465 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 13:26:09 -0500 Cc: sbrim@cisco.com Subject: [ipv6-dir] FW: ITU-T Q.9/13 IPv6 concerns X-BeenThere: ipv6-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IPv6 Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-dir-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-dir-bounces@ietf.org Is this something that the IPv6 directorate could prepare a response to? Any volunteers to take the lead on getting this together? Margaret -----Original Message----- From: Scott W Brim [mailto:sbrim@cisco.com]=20 Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 1:17 PM To: 'Margaret Wasserman' Subject: ITU-T Q.9/13 IPv6 concerns Hi Margaret. Please either (1) tell me which WGs or ADs to direct this to, or (2) compile a list of RFCs/drafts yourself. I'm grateful. After we have a list I'll draft up a liaison for you. These are some specific things that Q.9/13 is concerned about. What the IETF should do is to send them a list of the relevant drafts and RFCs, showing them how these issues are being addressed. I would do this myself but I'm not an IPv6 expert and I know I'll miss something. All we need is a list. - QoS signaling. They want to be sure that they can efficiently use both the the transport signaling protocols (such as RSVP and NSIS) and the application signaling protocols (such as SIP) in an IPv6 environment. Relevant RFCs/drafts are those about how those protocols work over IPv6. - QoS signaling interworking, IPv4<->IPv6. - General IPv4-IPv6. They are wondering under what conditions application level gateways will be required. - Also list the structure of the flow label. They are very interested in what it can be used for. - Multihoming with IPv6. Nothing surprising here -- just list the latest cool stuff for multihoming (both site and host). They like SCTP. - Mobility. - MPLS and IPv6. Thanks ... Scott _______________________________________________ ipv6-dir mailing list ipv6-dir@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-dir From ipv6-dir-bounces@ietf.org Tue Nov 08 14:09:36 2005 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EZYqe-00020h-90; Tue, 08 Nov 2005 14:09:36 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EZYqd-00020c-Fj for ipv6-dir@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Nov 2005 14:09:35 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26521 for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 14:09:08 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200511081909.OAA26521@ietf.org> Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] ident=mailnull) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EZZ6U-0005A8-9s for ipv6-dir@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Nov 2005 14:25:59 -0500 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=psg.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.52 (FreeBSD)) id 1EZYqb-0001h5-4a; Tue, 08 Nov 2005 19:09:33 +0000 To: "Margaret Wasserman" Subject: Re: [ipv6-dir] FW: ITU-T Q.9/13 IPv6 concerns Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 11:09:33 -0800 From: Allison Mankin X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab Cc: sbrim@cisco.com, ipv6-dir@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IPv6 Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-dir-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-dir-bounces@ietf.org Margaret, On these: > - QoS signaling. They want to be sure that they can efficiently use > both the the transport signaling protocols (such as RSVP and NSIS) > and the application signaling protocols (such as SIP) in an IPv6 > environment. Relevant RFCs/drafts are those about how those > protocols work over IPv6. > > - QoS signaling interworking, IPv4<->IPv6. If what they want to do with signaling is efficient, they should not be hindered by IPv6 or IPv4<->IPv6 questions... RSVP, NSIS and SIPPING have relevant points in RFCs and/or drafts. My thought is that John Loughney to prepare a lightly annotated list for RSVP/NSIS and and the editor of the SIP-related v6 work, Vijay Gurbani to do the same for that. And have NSIS and SIPPING take a look for transparency before it goes over to ITU. Allison _______________________________________________ ipv6-dir mailing list ipv6-dir@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-dir From ipv6-dir-bounces@ietf.org Tue Nov 08 14:17:26 2005 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EZYyE-0003ra-OO; Tue, 08 Nov 2005 14:17:26 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EZYyD-0003rM-CZ for ipv6-dir@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Nov 2005 14:17:25 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA27021 for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 14:16:58 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200511081916.OAA27021@ietf.org> Received: from psg.com ([147.28.0.62] ident=mailnull) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EZZE1-0005Ny-7v for ipv6-dir@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Nov 2005 14:33:46 -0500 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=psg.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.52 (FreeBSD)) id 1EZYy1-0002Er-TD; Tue, 08 Nov 2005 19:17:13 +0000 To: "Margaret Wasserman" Subject: Re: [ipv6-dir] FW: ITU-T Q.9/13 IPv6 concerns Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 11:17:13 -0800 From: Allison Mankin X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed Cc: sbrim@cisco.com, ipv6-dir@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IPv6 Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-dir-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-dir-bounces@ietf.org Margaret, My point was not really that there wasn't an IPv6 issue, but rather that the directorate and ITU could get reports from these specific folks about the way things are managed safely for IPv6. Al _______________________________________________ ipv6-dir mailing list ipv6-dir@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-dir From ipv6-dir-bounces@ietf.org Tue Nov 08 17:20:34 2005 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EZbpS-0002F1-8t; Tue, 08 Nov 2005 17:20:34 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EZbpR-0002Ew-KP for ipv6-dir@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Nov 2005 17:20:33 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA09647 for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 17:20:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from lemland.kurtis.pp.se ([213.204.46.37]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EZc5J-0002lN-Us for ipv6-dir@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Nov 2005 17:36:59 -0500 Received: from [209.52.110.237] (pp110-237.bctel.ca [209.52.110.237]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by lemland.kurtis.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id B44CE78C35; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 23:20:22 +0100 (CET) In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v734) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <0403EA74-AF2D-4795-A42A-2B52F8D63594@kurtis.pp.se> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist Subject: Re: [ipv6-dir] FW: ITU-T Q.9/13 IPv6 concerns Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 23:20:53 +0100 To: Margaret Wasserman X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.734) X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: sbrim@cisco.com, ipv6-dir@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IPv6 Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-dir-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-dir-bounces@ietf.org On 8 nov 2005, at 18.59, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > > Is this something that the IPv6 directorate could prepare a > response to? > Any volunteers to take the lead on getting this together? Sure. Scott, can you give some more background on what they are looking for specifically and why? This does look a bit like the "complete IPv6 specification" :-) [snip] > - Multihoming with IPv6. Nothing surprising here -- just list the > latest cool stuff for multihoming (both site and host). They like > SCTP. I think it's safe to argue that the IETF has ruled out SCTP for multihoming... - kurtis - _______________________________________________ ipv6-dir mailing list ipv6-dir@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-dir From ipv6-dir-bounces@ietf.org Tue Nov 08 21:02:15 2005 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EZfHz-0003qr-T1; Tue, 08 Nov 2005 21:02:15 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EZYu4-0002ct-KR for ipv6-dir@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Nov 2005 14:13:08 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA26718 for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 14:12:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from dhost002-46.dex002.intermedia.net ([64.78.21.140]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EZZ9v-0005FS-4a for ipv6-dir@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Nov 2005 14:29:32 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [ipv6-dir] FW: ITU-T Q.9/13 IPv6 concerns Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 11:12:51 -0800 Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [ipv6-dir] FW: ITU-T Q.9/13 IPv6 concerns Thread-Index: AcXkl/bREVHvvPmVS5yInSlsGekYAwAAGBqg From: "Margaret Wasserman" To: "Allison Mankin" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 21:02:14 -0500 Cc: sbrim@cisco.com, ipv6-dir@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ipv6-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IPv6 Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-dir-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-dir-bounces@ietf.org That makes sense, Allison. I agree that those particular issues are not IPv6-specific. Margaret -----Original Message----- From: Allison Mankin [mailto:mankin@psg.com]=20 Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 11:10 AM To: Margaret Wasserman Cc: ipv6-dir@ietf.org; sbrim@cisco.com Subject: Re: [ipv6-dir] FW: ITU-T Q.9/13 IPv6 concerns=20 Margaret, On these: > - QoS signaling. They want to be sure that they can efficiently use > both the the transport signaling protocols (such as RSVP and NSIS) > and the application signaling protocols (such as SIP) in an IPv6 > environment. Relevant RFCs/drafts are those about how those > protocols work over IPv6. >=20 > - QoS signaling interworking, IPv4<->IPv6. If what they want to do with signaling is efficient, they should not be hindered by IPv6 or IPv4<->IPv6 questions... RSVP, NSIS and SIPPING have relevant points in RFCs and/or drafts. My=20 thought is that John Loughney to prepare a lightly annotated list for RSVP/NSIS and and the editor of the SIP-related v6 work, Vijay Gurbani to do the same for that. And have NSIS and SIPPING take a look for transparency before it goes over to ITU. Allison _______________________________________________ ipv6-dir mailing list ipv6-dir@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-dir From ipv6-dir-bounces@ietf.org Tue Nov 08 22:30:27 2005 Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EZgfL-0001BH-3L; Tue, 08 Nov 2005 22:30:27 -0500 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EZgB6-0007qU-8a for ipv6-dir@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 08 Nov 2005 21:59:12 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA07071 for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 21:58:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from sj-iport-1-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.70] helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EZgR2-0005QW-0F for ipv6-dir@ietf.org; Tue, 08 Nov 2005 22:15:40 -0500 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([171.71.177.237]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Nov 2005 18:59:03 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: i="3.97,306,1125903600"; d="scan'208"; a="673069210:sNHT25660888" Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id jA92ww4C006551; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 18:59:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.187]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 8 Nov 2005 18:58:58 -0800 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([171.68.225.134]) by xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Tue, 8 Nov 2005 18:58:58 -0800 Message-ID: <437165F1.1040301@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 18:58:57 -0800 From: Scott W Brim User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050923 Thunderbird/1.0.7 Mnenhy/0.7.2.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Margaret Wasserman References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.93.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Nov 2005 02:58:58.0351 (UTC) FILETIME=[8792D3F0:01C5E4D9] X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 82c9bddb247d9ba4471160a9a865a5f3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 22:30:25 -0500 Cc: ipv6-dir@ietf.org Subject: [ipv6-dir] Re: FW: ITU-T Q.9/13 IPv6 concerns X-BeenThere: ipv6-dir@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF IPv6 Directorate List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ipv6-dir-bounces@ietf.org Errors-To: ipv6-dir-bounces@ietf.org For those who might not have seen them, this came out of https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/liaison_detail.cgi?detail_id=127 and https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file182.pdf Thanks ... Scott On 11/08/2005 09:59 AM, Margaret Wasserman allegedly wrote: > Is this something that the IPv6 directorate could prepare a response to? > Any volunteers to take the lead on getting this together? > > Margaret > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott W Brim [mailto:sbrim@cisco.com] > Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 1:17 PM > To: 'Margaret Wasserman' > Subject: ITU-T Q.9/13 IPv6 concerns > > Hi Margaret. Please either (1) tell me which WGs or ADs to direct > this to, or (2) compile a list of RFCs/drafts yourself. I'm grateful. > After we have a list I'll draft up a liaison for you. > > These are some specific things that Q.9/13 is concerned about. What > the IETF should do is to send them a list of the relevant drafts and > RFCs, showing them how these issues are being addressed. > > I would do this myself but I'm not an IPv6 expert and I know I'll miss > something. All we need is a list. > > - QoS signaling. They want to be sure that they can efficiently use > both the the transport signaling protocols (such as RSVP and NSIS) > and the application signaling protocols (such as SIP) in an IPv6 > environment. Relevant RFCs/drafts are those about how those > protocols work over IPv6. > > - QoS signaling interworking, IPv4<->IPv6. > > - General IPv4-IPv6. They are wondering under what conditions > application level gateways will be required. > > - Also list the structure of the flow label. They are very interested > in what it can be used for. > > - Multihoming with IPv6. Nothing surprising here -- just list the > latest cool stuff for multihoming (both site and host). They like > SCTP. > > - Mobility. > > - MPLS and IPv6. > > > > Thanks ... Scott > _______________________________________________ ipv6-dir mailing list ipv6-dir@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-dir