From internet-drafts@ietf.org Wed Jun 1 04:29:37 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72F27E07D7; Wed, 1 Jun 2011 04:29:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.564 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.564 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.035, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m-cAaaT7smX4; Wed, 1 Jun 2011 04:29:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA399E06D8; Wed, 1 Jun 2011 04:29:36 -0700 (PDT) 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: 3.55 Message-ID: <20110601112936.2669.62992.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 04:29:36 -0700 Cc: softwires@ietf.org Subject: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-gateway-init-ds-lite-04.txt X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 11:29:37 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Softwires Working Group of the IETF. Title : Gateway Initiated Dual-Stack Lite Deployment Author(s) : Frank Brockners Sri Gundavelli Sebastian Speicher David Ward Filename : draft-ietf-softwire-gateway-init-ds-lite-04.txt Pages : 15 Date : 2011-06-01 Gateway-Initiated Dual-Stack lite (GI-DS-lite) is a variant of Dual- Stack lite (DS-lite) applicable to certain tunnel-based access architectures. GI-DS-lite extends existing access tunnels beyond the access gateway to an IPv4-IPv4 NAT using softwires with an embedded context identifier that uniquely identifies the end-system the tunneled packets belong to. The access gateway determines which portion of the traffic requires NAT using local policies and sends/ receives this portion to/from this softwire. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-softwire-gateway-init-ds-lit= e-04.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-softwire-gateway-init-ds-lite= -04.txt From fbrockne@cisco.com Wed Jun 1 04:39:22 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 919EAE0692 for ; Wed, 1 Jun 2011 04:39:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.849 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.849 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_22=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nPhauo0V+est for ; Wed, 1 Jun 2011 04:39:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF9A7E0670 for ; Wed, 1 Jun 2011 04:39:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fbrockne@cisco.com; l=6624; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1306928361; x=1308137961; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to:cc; bh=WXpbql2v0RrG9FXW0wrOoqqKGazT32R53gMqy3Q/zeg=; b=ERJEa3zsvKBms/2lQX8t82eMfn+9621Lw9ZUklbXKPOGaZqyiDq5bhu6 SkHwkA+hpxIPI5FkWz6YIrMoEPF6JtZPqhiaS+ovCsKaS9Unph+w5D7HV u6xzJY5oSaH55I2c8z7N1rYIN8dVyi2AcrLcAwk1amlzFCv4dnnal+7+f U=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgYBAAsk5k2Q/khR/2dsb2JhbABFDpdQjlN3qTSdToMXgwkElSGKXA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.65,303,1304294400"; d="scan'208";a="33241229" Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.72.81]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Jun 2011 11:39:19 +0000 Received: from xbh-ams-101.cisco.com (xbh-ams-101.cisco.com [144.254.74.71]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p51BdJqi008962; Wed, 1 Jun 2011 11:39:19 GMT Received: from xmb-ams-106.cisco.com ([144.254.74.81]) by xbh-ams-101.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 1 Jun 2011 13:39:19 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 13:39:16 +0200 Message-ID: <0D212BD466921646B58854FB79092CEC05D120C4@XMB-AMS-106.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-softwire-gateway-init-ds-lite-03 Thread-Index: Acv4K8cqLDbumNHyRFKbEKuqNtLOzAoI5s3Q References: <0D212BD466921646B58854FB79092CEC052F2460@XMB-AMS-106.cisco.com> From: "Frank Brockners (fbrockne)" To: "Paco Cortes" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Jun 2011 11:39:19.0509 (UTC) FILETIME=[8B65F850:01CC2050] Cc: softwires@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Softwires] draft-ietf-softwire-gateway-init-ds-lite-03 X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2011 11:39:22 -0000 Hi Paco, all, Sorry for the delay - I just posted a revised version (-04) which = includes the changes on MPLS VPN encapsulation discussed. (3GPP also = recently updated 3GPP 23.975 and added MPLS VPN encapsulation, already = leveraging the clarifications provided by the discussion below) Regards, Frank > -----Original Message----- > From: Paco Cortes [mailto:pacosaddress@googlemail.com] > Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 11:35 AM > To: Frank Brockners (fbrockne) > Cc: softwires@ietf.org > Subject: Re: draft-ietf-softwire-gateway-init-ds-lite-03 >=20 > Hi Frank, >=20 > fine with me. It is better than my original proposal. >=20 > br, > Paco >=20 > 2011/4/11 Frank Brockners (fbrockne) : > > Hi Paco, > > > > thanks - and I agree with you that the description of the MPLS VPN > > variant is currently ambiguous and needs refinement. I agree > > with your suggested changes. One additional thought: Given that the > > SWID for MPLS VPNs can really be "something" which uniquely > identifies > > the VPN, how about making the SWID at both ends of the softwire a > > completely generic identifier, with the one quality of uniquely > > identifying the VPN? We'd give the two embodiments you mention > > as examples, but wouldn't restrict things to just the two. For > > MPLS VPNs the SWID isn't really something which requires > specification, > > hence we can leave it to the implementers to pick something > > appropriate. > > > > Here's a proposal for a slightly modified SECOND CHANGE: > > > > o MPLS VPN: The SWID is a generic identifier which uniquely > identifies > > the VPN at either the Gateway or AFTR. Depending on whether the > Gateway > > or AFTR are acting as CE or PE, the SWID could e.g. be an attachment > > circuit identifier, an identifier representing the set of VPN route > > labels pointing to the routes within the VPN, etc. The AD's > > IPv4-address is the CID. For a given VPN, the AD's IPv4 address must > > be unique. > > > > Thanks, Frank > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Paco Cortes [mailto:pacosaddress@googlemail.com] > >> Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2011 2:20 PM > >> To: softwires@ietf.org; Frank Brockners (fbrockne) > >> Subject: draft-ietf-softwire-gateway-init-ds-lite-03 > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> When reading the description of the MPLS VPN variant of GI-DS-lite, > my > >> interpretation has always been that the gateway and the AFTR are > >> connected to the MPLS VPN [RFC4364] as CE devices. > >> In an off-line discussion with Frank, we realized that we had > >> different interpretations and that his intention had been to > describe > >> both nodes as PE devices. > >> We then realized that the I-D is ambiguous, allowing both > >> interpretations, and we also agreed on that both of them are > actually > >> sound possible implementations, as well as the combination of them > >> (i.e. the gateways acting as CE and the AFTR as PE, or the other = way > >> around). > >> > >> With this email I'd like to propose some small updates to the draft > in > >> order to explicitly mention these possibilities, as well as to > correct > >> other minor statements which I found confusing or misleading while > >> trying to read more deeply the MPLS VPN embodiement description. > >> > >> VPN-ID is mentioned as SWID for the MPLS VPN case, without > specifying > >> what the VPN-ID might be. It could be interpreted as the identifier > of > >> an attachment circuit (if the Gateway or AFTR are CEs), a VRF-wide > >> MPLS label if an implementation uses it, or some other internal VRF > >> identifier, for instance an associated route distinguisher, if an > >> implementations uses route specific MPLS VPN route labels. > >> The term "MPLS VPN label" is used once, which is > ambiguous/confusing. > >> A generic use of RFC 4364 would imply that this is a set of MPLS = VPN > >> route labels which match routes within one VPN. Only an > implementation > >> choosing a single MPLS label for an entire VRF (one of the > >> alternatives in RFC 4364 section 4.3.2) could correctly used the > >> singular form. But I doubt that it is the intention of this I-D to > >> mandate a specific implementation of RFC 4364. > >> I also think that if the gateway and the AFTR are acting as PEs, > =A0the > >> fact that the MPLS labels used by them are not the same deserves > >> explicit mention. I.e., that "the SWID does not need to be globally > >> unique, i.e. different SWIDs could be used to identify a softwire = at > >> the different ends of a tunnel". (quoting Frank) > >> > >> So, here are my proposed changes to draft-ietf-softwire-gateway- > init- > >> ds-lite-03: > >> > >> FIRST CHANGE > >> In section 3 of the I-D I would extend the sentence: > >> "The softwire is identified by a softwire identifier (SWID)" > >> to say > >> "The softwire is identified by a softwire identifier (SWID), which > >> does not need to be globally unique, i.e. different SWIDs could be > >> used to identify a softwire at the different ends of a softwire" > >> > >> SECOND CHANGE > >> In section 6 of the I-D, I would modify the bullet: > >> " =A0 o =A0MPLS VPN: SWID is the MPLS VPN label. =A0The AD's = IPv4-address > is > >> =A0 =A0 =A0 the CID. =A0For a given MPLS VPN label, the AD's IPv4 = address > must > >> =A0 =A0 =A0 be unique." > >> to say > >> "o MPLS VPN: depending on the gateway or the AFTR being connected = as > >> CE or PE devices, the SWID is respectively an attachment circuit > >> identifier or a representation of the VPN route labels pointing to > >> routes within the VPN. The AD's IPv4-address is the CID. For a = given > >> VPN, the AD's IPv4 address must be unique" > >> > >> THIRD CHANGE > >> RFC 4364 should be added as reference. > >> > >> END OF PROPOSED CHANGES > >> > >> I didn't see the need for other changes. > >> On the one hand, the draft could benefit from more details on the > >> different cases (combinations of CEs and PEs) and advantages or > >> disadvantages. On the other hand, the draft does not go into any of > >> the implementations (GRE, IPv4 in IPv4, ...) in details, so that > >> adding more on the MPLS VPN variant could create an unbalance. > >> > >> I'm also aware that it can be discussed if it is correct to say = that > a > >> gateway or AFTR acts as PE device, or if we should say that they = act > >> as combined CE+PE devices. But I personally prefer the first = wording > >> ;-). > >> > >> Any opinions? > >> > >> br, > >> =A0 Paco > > From mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com Fri Jun 10 04:31:15 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C6DC11E807E for ; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 04:31:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.248 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0-W4tfOMhheG for ; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 04:31:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias245.francetelecom.com [80.12.204.245]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A026F11E807D for ; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 04:31:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omfeda08.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.201]) by omfeda14.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id E2F252AC2EA; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:31:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from PUEXCH61.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.32]) by omfeda08.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id C54E738403A; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:31:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.9]) by PUEXCH61.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.32]) with mapi; Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:31:12 +0200 From: To: Softwires-wg , 'Softwire Chairs' Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 13:31:10 +0200 Thread-Topic: Next step for Stateless Motivations I-D Thread-Index: AcwnYeW35LReQM6uTGO/YwYwlN6B6A== Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F33E50162622@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> Accept-Language: fr-FR Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: fr-FR Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F33E50162622PUEXCB1Bnante_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-PMX-Version: 5.5.9.395186, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2011.6.10.101214 Cc: "Isabel@ptinovacao.pt" , "chengang@chinamobile.com" Subject: [Softwires] Next step for Stateless Motivations I-D X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 11:31:15 -0000 --_000_94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F33E50162622PUEXCB1Bnante_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear all, An updated version of the "Motivations for Stateless IPv4 over IPv6 Migrati= on Solutions" I-D has been submitted. The document is available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-operators-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivatio= n-02 This document has been largely reviewed and inputs from other contributors = has been taken into account. Together with my co-authors, we ask the working group to consider the adopt= ion of this document as a WG I-D. Comments and suggestions are more than welcome. Cheers, Med --_000_94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F33E50162622PUEXCB1Bnante_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
D= ear=20 all,
 
A= n updated=20 version of the "Motivations for Stateless IPv4 over I= Pv6=20 Migration Solutions" I-D has been submitted. The document is available=20 at:
<= A=20 href=3D"http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-operators-softwire-stateless-4v6-m= otivation-02">http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-operators-softwire-stateless= -4v6-motivation-02
 
T= his=20 document has been largely reviewed and inputs from other contributors has b= een=20 taken into account.
 
T= ogether=20 with my co-authors, we ask the working group to consider the adoption of th= is=20 document as a WG I-D.
 
C= omments and=20 suggestions are more than welcome.
 
Cheers,
Med
--_000_94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F33E50162622PUEXCB1Bnante_-- From jacniq@gmail.com Mon Jun 13 08:52:57 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56DA211E813F for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 08:52:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Wry0Th20XmDe for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 08:52:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vw0-f44.google.com (mail-vw0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 822A511E8137 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 08:52:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vws12 with SMTP id 12so5510801vws.31 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 08:52:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; bh=aoT8hDcltUw/FoajwJkwn2apx7X9gfuDDD3LNGGPwGY=; b=qFFbDP/DFRyfmJXUWaOpcooGwA5FDDVsxuxWolrOaoSGM/6eGMFiesVwjR5lIRt2d3 e+bY1KBIpW2PZrDvQGfio/tg4XGG8vos1Vcw9U+67gNFCPWCo/dgB7qLOaWXkNM3uENV f5ToaWkh+7Da722GfEZYT5uI05TKoEbZBBlQE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=rvZAMGDkPKKZvI5DJHtPu6baayznV9nYjOKsbRSPg8ox7nD8aF6l72sSnTegNJzzbY y+KeObuDkRUx60k9In8+cphxI7B0zgOtKrHafEzDjum3s4134/04262OD3dh3m9KVGMB 8hojbnogDScEldR1KOrnYzwok3UOys7c3lYaQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.114.104 with SMTP id jf8mr1306471vdb.193.1307980375778; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 08:52:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.181.67 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Jun 2011 08:52:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 23:52:55 +0800 Message-ID: From: Jacni Qin To: softwires@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec547c92dabe73c04a599e974 Cc: wangqian Subject: [Softwires] A new version of draft-qin-softwire-dslite-multicast, comments are more than welcome. X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 15:52:57 -0000 --bcaec547c92dabe73c04a599e974 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Dear all, A new version of draft-qin-softwire-dslite-multicast has just been posted, please see: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-qin-softwire-dslite-multicast-04. To avoid the confusion, the "Fall-back Mode" mentioned previously was removed, based on the agreement among authors. It's clear that the inefficiency of forwarding happens if the original DS-Lite design is used for multicast delivery (which can get even worse, if for example, the AFTR capability is centralized). We tried to solve the problem in this extensions of DS-Lite, by making the underneath IPv6 network forward multicast traffics in standard multicast manner. Comments are more than welcome! Cheers, Jacni --bcaec547c92dabe73c04a599e974 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear all,

A new version of draft-q= in-softwire-dslite-multicast has just been posted, please see: http://to= ols.ietf.org/html/draft-qin-softwire-dslite-multicast-04.
To avoid the confusion, the "Fall-back Mode" mentioned previously= was removed, based on the agreement among authors.

It's clear = that the inefficiency of forwarding happens if the original DS-Lite design = is used for multicast delivery (which can get even worse, if for example, t= he AFTR capability is centralized). We tried to solve the problem in this e= xtensions of DS-Lite, by making the underneath IPv6 network forward multica= st traffics in standard multicast manner.

Comments are more than welcome!


Cheers,
Jacni

--bcaec547c92dabe73c04a599e974-- From satoru.matsushima@gmail.com Thu Jun 16 23:32:11 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65B2D11E8085 for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 23:32:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MWA6WTUl4VpQ for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 23:32:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pz0-f44.google.com (mail-pz0-f44.google.com [209.85.210.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 907EE11E80A3 for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 23:32:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pzk5 with SMTP id 5so1718289pzk.31 for ; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 23:32:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to:x-mailer; bh=cyUpxLqqOomY8RO73Xx7iDd764+WwXS/vy+z3Sy1Z84=; b=PzAEwYOe/RVL6/xQ89rcD3mrjDQONmbgehqG02vYk59GwZUjuPPe8kRm7cTyqfgHWd vEzSk4M+Qah7pwmdmRVkAt751Rb/ANrupDPZ1eUcGUy6DVMrS1Fj/YDm4d2ovl9/oKT5 GUK4RZi+wG7C1u0V462QBgLMra+K9EflBq1xU= 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=BFTIpQUQtUk+147u2dWNZOyl69RrLQ9KprG7HAbImTVBrCjYeJXzISfaUYqtsioKkv yP85LYPzuSOI1IRAnC3lY4uaKX2WlCl7Lle8ZgnBQjxdRzcRP3E6lhJd23SOjPBzlE+y V3DKrMIQY7X+FBUsOPclhULGk4SbpzJ7x5V9s= Received: by 10.68.14.164 with SMTP id q4mr918420pbc.352.1308292330172; Thu, 16 Jun 2011 23:32:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.201.81.52] ([202.45.12.174]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v6sm1360497pbh.38.2011.06.16.23.32.06 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 16 Jun 2011 23:32:08 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Satoru Matsushima In-Reply-To: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F33E50162622@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 15:32:04 +0900 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F33E50162622@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: "chengang@chinamobile.com" , 'Softwire Chairs' , Softwires-wg , "Isabel@ptinovacao.pt" Subject: Re: [Softwires] Next step for Stateless Motivations I-D X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 06:32:11 -0000 Dear Softwires Working Group chairs, I support that an request from Mohamed to make WG adoption as = appropriate charter item. I'm looking forward you to take your kind adoption procedure for the = request. Sincerely yours, -- Satoru Matsushima On 2011/06/10, at 20:31, = wrote: > Dear all, > =20 > An updated version of the "Motivations for Stateless IPv4 over IPv6 = Migration Solutions" I-D has been submitted. The document is available = at: > = http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-operators-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivati= on-02 > =20 > This document has been largely reviewed and inputs from other = contributors has been taken into account. > =20 > Together with my co-authors, we ask the working group to consider the = adoption of this document as a WG I-D. > =20 > Comments and suggestions are more than welcome. > =20 > Cheers, > Med From xiaohong.deng@orange-ftgroup.com Mon Jun 20 23:49:47 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EC1511E81BE for ; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 23:49:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.973 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.973 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.391, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id moODncBfOmQb for ; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 23:49:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com [195.101.245.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1DFF11E81C6 for ; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 23:49:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 918498B8016; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 08:50:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.47]) by p-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F37A89B0006; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 08:50:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ch-mailsrv.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.193.250.27]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 21 Jun 2011 08:45:46 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CC2FDE.D7C1EECE" Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 14:45:43 +0800 Message-ID: <0962B0BEF842A24191AD9BE41A8DD2FC01835187@ch-mailsrv.rd.francetelecom.fr> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: A new version of draft-zhou-softwire-b4-nat has been submitted Thread-Index: Acwv3teaayhFCBVISRixE1QSIldDuQ== From: To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jun 2011 06:45:46.0970 (UTC) FILETIME=[D9C4CBA0:01CC2FDE] Cc: gabor.bajko@nokia.com, cathy.zhou@huawei.com Subject: [Softwires] A new version of draft-zhou-softwire-b4-nat has been submitted X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 06:49:47 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01CC2FDE.D7C1EECE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear all, A new version of draft-zhou-softwire-b4-nat has been submitted. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhou-softwire-b4-nat-01 =20 =20 The Abstract of this I-D: This document describes the behavior of the B4 when co-located with a NAT while the NAT in the AFTR is disabled. The proposed solution is expected to offload the burden on the AFTR, by delegating the NAT to B4. =20 Your comments are welcome. =20 Best Regards, Xiaohong Deng opensource A+P: http://opensourceaplusp.weebly.com/ =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01CC2FDE.D7C1EECE Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear all,

A new version of = draft-zhou-softwire-b4-nat=20 has been submitted.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhou-softwire-b4-nat-01<= /FONT>

 

The Abstract of this=20 I-D:

   This document = describes the=20 behavior of the B4 when co-located with a

   NAT while the = NAT in the=20 AFTR is disabled. The proposed solution is

   expected to = offload the=20 burden on the AFTR, by delegating the NAT to

   = B4.

 

Your comments are=20 welcome.

 

Best = Regards,

Xiaohong=20 Deng

opensource A+P: http://opensourceaplusp.weeb= ly.com/
 
------_=_NextPart_001_01CC2FDE.D7C1EECE-- From cathy.zhou@huawei.com Mon Jun 20 00:26:51 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4863C21F8497 for ; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 00:26:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9Fn5EHhkTG5z for ; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 00:26:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com (szxga01-in.huawei.com [119.145.14.64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9C7121F8496 for ; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 00:26:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in [172.24.2.49]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LN2001M0VCHSW@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for softwires@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:26:41 +0800 (CST) Received: from szxrg01-dlp.huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0LN200CH9VCBX9@szxga05-in.huawei.com> for softwires@ietf.org; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:26:40 +0800 (CST) Received: from 172.24.2.119 (EHLO szxeml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.24.2.119]) by szxrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.1.9-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id ABT36220; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:26:40 +0800 (CST) Received: from SZXEML411-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.138) by szxeml203-edg.china.huawei.com (172.24.2.55) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.270.1; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:20:46 +0800 Received: from SZXEML501-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.140]) by szxeml411-hub.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.131]) with mapi id 14.01.0270.001; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 15:20:46 +0800 Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 07:20:45 +0000 From: "Cathy Zhou(Qian)" X-Originating-IP: [10.70.39.85] To: " (softwires@ietf.org)" Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_H7yueuaq11QTNAZ3/1A1JQ)" Content-language: zh-CN Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Thread-topic: A new version of draft-zhou-softwire-b4-nat has been submitted Thread-index: AcwvGpHgINnvK0ciRraKsKio3YGYRw== X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 11:45:02 -0700 Cc: "gabor.bajko@nokia.com" , "xiaohong.deng@orange-ftgroup.com" Subject: [Softwires] A new version of draft-zhou-softwire-b4-nat has been submitted X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 09:38:58 -0000 --Boundary_(ID_H7yueuaq11QTNAZ3/1A1JQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Dear all, A new version of draft-zhou-softwire-b4-nat has been submitted. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhou-softwire-b4-nat-01 The Abstract of this I-D: This document describes the behavior of the B4 when co-located with a NAT while the NAT in the AFTR is disabled. The proposed solution is expected to offload the burden on the AFTR, by delegating the NAT to B4. Your comments are welcome. Best Regards, Cathy ZHOU --Boundary_(ID_H7yueuaq11QTNAZ3/1A1JQ) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Dear all,

A new version of draft-zhou-softwire-b4-nat has been submitted.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhou-softwire-b4-nat-01

 

The Abstract of this I-D:

   This document describes the behavior of the B4 when co-located with a

   NAT while the NAT in the AFTR is disabled. The proposed solution is

   expected to offload the burden on the AFTR, by delegating the NAT to

   B4.

 

Your comments are welcome.

 

Best Regards,

Cathy ZHOU

 

--Boundary_(ID_H7yueuaq11QTNAZ3/1A1JQ)-- From xiaohong.deng@orange-ftgroup.com Thu Jun 30 02:34:27 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3757621F87B9; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 02:34:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.364 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.364 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GVeWkcWTMsuU; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 02:34:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from r-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (r-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com [217.108.152.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1717621F87C7; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 02:34:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from r-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id C5A266D8002; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 11:35:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.192.128.47]) by r-mail1.rd.francetelecom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B467B6C8003; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 11:35:42 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ch-mailsrv.rd.francetelecom.fr ([10.193.250.27]) by ftrdsmtp2.rd.francetelecom.fr with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 30 Jun 2011 11:34:27 +0200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CC3708.E42D7332" Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 17:34:21 +0800 Message-ID: <0962B0BEF842A24191AD9BE41A8DD2FC01869035@ch-mailsrv.rd.francetelecom.fr> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: New draft: draft-deng-v6ops-aplusp-experiment-results Thread-Index: Acw3COQMj0ZpjySmRQmqNcMWb4Scmw== From: To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jun 2011 09:34:27.0435 (UTC) FILETIME=[E7C0F3B0:01CC3708] Cc: mayan@bupt.edu.cn, zhaoqin.bupt@gmail.com, huangxh@buptnet.edu.cn, lan.wang@orange-ftgroup.com, tao.zheng@orange-ftgroup.com Subject: [Softwires] New draft: draft-deng-v6ops-aplusp-experiment-results X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 09:34:27 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01CC3708.E42D7332 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear all, =20 A new draft: draft-deng-v6ops-aplusp-experiment-results-00 has been posted, at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-deng-v6ops-aplusp-experiment-results-00 =20 The Abstract of this I-D: =20 This memo describes an implementation of A+P in a provider's IPv6- only network. It provides details of the implementation, network elements, configurations and test results as well. Besides traditional port range A+P, a scattered port sets flavor of A+P is also implemented and verified for the sake of distributing incoming ports among customers in a more discrete way. The test results consist of the application compatibility test, UPnP extension for A+P, port usage and BitTorrent behavior with A+P. =20 This memo focuses on the IPv6 flavor of A+P. =20 Your comments are more than welcomed. =20 Regards, Xiaohong opensource A+P: http://opensourceaplusp.weebly.com/ =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01CC3708.E42D7332 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear all,

 

A new draft:=20 draft-deng-v6ops-aplusp-experiment-results-00 has been posted,=20 at

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-deng-v6ops-aplusp-experiment-re= sults-00

 

The Abstract of this=20 I-D:

 

 =20 This memo describes an implementation of A+P in a provider's=20 IPv6-

 =20 only network. It provides details of the implementation,=20 network

 =20 elements, configurations and test results as well.=20 Besides

 =20 traditional port range A+P, a scattered port sets flavor of A+P=20 is

 =20 also implemented and verified for the sake of distributing=20 incoming

 =20 ports among customers in a more discrete way. The test=20 results

 =20 consist of the application compatibility test, UPnP extension for = A+P,

 =20 port usage and BitTorrent behavior with=20 A+P.

 

 =20 This memo focuses on the IPv6 flavor of = A+P.

 

Your comments are more than=20 welcomed.

 

Regards,

Xiaohong

opensource = A+P: http://opensourceaplusp.weeb= ly.com/
 
------_=_NextPart_001_01CC3708.E42D7332-- From lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com Thu Jun 30 03:55:07 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 684C021F86E2 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 03:55:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.977 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RELAY_IS_221=2.222] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2Evf-VTm3O-5 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 03:55:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (imss.chinamobile.com [221.130.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E97F21F864B for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 03:55:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CE00A6DC for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:54:54 +0800 (CST) Received: from mail.chinamobile.com (unknown [10.1.28.22]) by imss.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 833FEA6C8 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:54:54 +0800 (CST) Received: from lizhengqiang ([10.2.2.206]) by mail.chinamobile.com (Lotus Domino Release 6.5.6) with ESMTP id 2011063018544308-18847 ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:54:43 +0800 Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 18:54:38 +0800 From: "lizhenqiang" To: softwires@ietf.org References: Message-ID: <201106301854385217804@chinamobile.com> X-mailer: Foxmail 6, 9, 201, 16 [cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2011-06-30 18:54:43, Serialize by Router on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2011-06-30 18:54:54, Serialize complete at 2011-06-30 18:54:54 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====003_Dragon562262161636_=====" X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.8231-6.8.0.1017-18230.005 X-TM-AS-Result: No--12.204-7.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--12.204-7.0-31-10;No--12.204-7.0-31-10 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No;No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No Subject: [Softwires] Why not use AFTR IPv6 address for the new DHCPv6 option? X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 10:55:07 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --=====003_Dragon562262161636_===== Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Hi All, One question about the new DHCPv6 option for AFTR discovery. Maybe I missed the previous discussion. Sorry for that. According to draft-ietf-softwire-ds-lite-tunnel-option, a FQDN is suggested to be deliveried in the new DHCPv6 option to the B4. When receiving the FQDN, B4 has to do the DNS resolution to get the AFTR IPv6 address. The FQDN of the AFTR has to be configured in the DNS server. So, I think delivering the IPv6 address of the AFTR directly to the B4 is better. We can use DHCPv6 option to do this. The address of the AFTR only needs to be configured in the DHCPv6 server. Best Regards, Zhenqiang Li 2011-06-30 --=====003_Dragon562262161636_===== Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312" PCFET0NUWVBFIEhUTUwgUFVCTElDICItLy9XM0MvL0RURCBIVE1MIDQuMCBUcmFuc2l0aW9uYWwv L0VOIj4NCjxIVE1MPjxIRUFEPg0KPE1FVEEgY29udGVudD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PWdi MjMxMiIgaHR0cC1lcXVpdj1Db250ZW50LVR5cGU+DQo8TUVUQSBuYW1lPUdFTkVSQVRPUiBjb250 ZW50PSJNU0hUTUwgOC4wMC43NjAwLjE2ODIxIj4NCjxTVFlMRT5AZm9udC1mYWNlIHsNCglmb250 LWZhbWlseTogy87M5TsNCn0NCkBmb250LWZhY2Ugew0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiBWZXJkYW5hOw0K fQ0KQGZvbnQtZmFjZSB7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IEDLzszlOw0KfQ0KQHBhZ2UgU2VjdGlvbjEg e3NpemU6IDU5NS4zcHQgODQxLjlwdDsgbWFyZ2luOiA3Mi4wcHQgOTAuMHB0IDcyLjBwdCA5MC4w cHQ7IGxheW91dC1ncmlkOiAxNS42cHQ7IH0NClAuTXNvTm9ybWFsIHsNCglURVhULUpVU1RJRlk6 IGludGVyLWlkZW9ncmFwaDsgVEVYVC1BTElHTjoganVzdGlmeTsgTUFSR0lOOiAwY20gMGNtIDBw dDsgRk9OVC1GQU1JTFk6ICJUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4iOyBGT05ULVNJWkU6IDEwLjVwdA0KfQ0K TEkuTXNvTm9ybWFsIHsNCglURVhULUpVU1RJRlk6IGludGVyLWlkZW9ncmFwaDsgVEVYVC1BTElH TjoganVzdGlmeTsgTUFSR0lOOiAwY20gMGNtIDBwdDsgRk9OVC1GQU1JTFk6ICJUaW1lcyBOZXcg Um9tYW4iOyBGT05ULVNJWkU6IDEwLjVwdA0KfQ0KRElWLk1zb05vcm1hbCB7DQoJVEVYVC1KVVNU SUZZOiBpbnRlci1pZGVvZ3JhcGg7IFRFWFQtQUxJR046IGp1c3RpZnk7IE1BUkdJTjogMGNtIDBj bSAwcHQ7IEZPTlQtRkFNSUxZOiAiVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuIjsgRk9OVC1TSVpFOiAxMC41cHQN Cn0NCkE6bGluayB7DQoJQ09MT1I6IGJsdWU7IFRFWFQtREVDT1JBVElPTjogdW5kZXJsaW5lDQp9 DQpTUEFOLk1zb0h5cGVybGluayB7DQoJQ09MT1I6IGJsdWU7IFRFWFQtREVDT1JBVElPTjogdW5k ZXJsaW5lDQp9DQpBOnZpc2l0ZWQgew0KCUNPTE9SOiBwdXJwbGU7IFRFWFQtREVDT1JBVElPTjog dW5kZXJsaW5lDQp9DQpTUEFOLk1zb0h5cGVybGlua0ZvbGxvd2VkIHsNCglDT0xPUjogcHVycGxl OyBURVhULURFQ09SQVRJT046IHVuZGVybGluZQ0KfQ0KU1BBTi5FbWFpbFN0eWxlMTcgew0KCUZP TlQtU1RZTEU6IG5vcm1hbDsgRk9OVC1GQU1JTFk6IFZlcmRhbmE7IENPTE9SOiB3aW5kb3d0ZXh0 OyBGT05ULVdFSUdIVDogbm9ybWFsOyBURVhULURFQ09SQVRJT046IG5vbmU7IG1zby1zdHlsZS10 eXBlOiBwZXJzb25hbC1jb21wb3NlDQp9DQpESVYuU2VjdGlvbjEgew0KCXBhZ2U6IFNlY3Rpb24x DQp9DQpVTktOT1dOIHsNCglGT05ULVNJWkU6IDEwcHQNCn0NCkJMT0NLUVVPVEUgew0KCU1BUkdJ Ti1UT1A6IDBweDsgTUFSR0lOLUJPVFRPTTogMHB4OyBNQVJHSU4tTEVGVDogMmVtDQp9DQpPTCB7 DQoJTUFSR0lOLVRPUDogMHB4OyBNQVJHSU4tQk9UVE9NOiAwcHgNCn0NClVMIHsNCglNQVJHSU4t VE9QOiAwcHg7IE1BUkdJTi1CT1RUT006IDBweA0KfQ0KPC9TVFlMRT4NCjwvSEVBRD4NCjxCT0RZ IHN0eWxlPSJGT05ULUZBTUlMWTogdmVyZGFuYTsgRk9OVC1TSVpFOiAxMHB0Ij4NCjxESVY+PEZP TlQgY29sb3I9IzAwMDA4MCBzaXplPTIgZmFjZT1WZXJkYW5hPkhpIEFsbCw8L0ZPTlQ+PC9ESVY+ DQo8RElWPjxGT05UIGNvbG9yPSMwMDAwODA+PC9GT05UPiZuYnNwOzwvRElWPg0KPERJVj48Rk9O VCBjb2xvcj0jMDAwMDgwPk9uZSBxdWVzdGlvbiBhYm91dCB0aGUgbmV3IERIQ1B2NiBvcHRpb24g Zm9yIEFGVFIgDQpkaXNjb3ZlcnkuIE1heWJlIEkgbWlzc2VkIHRoZSBwcmV2aW91cyBkaXNjdXNz aW9uLiBTb3JyeSBmb3IgdGhhdC48L0ZPTlQ+PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPjxGT05UIGNvbG9yPSMwMDAw ODAgc2l6ZT0yIGZhY2U9VmVyZGFuYT5BY2NvcmRpbmcgdG8gDQpkcmFmdC1pZXRmLXNvZnR3aXJl LWRzLWxpdGUtdHVubmVsLW9wdGlvbiwmbmJzcDthIEZRRE4gaXMgc3VnZ2VzdGVkJm5ic3A7dG8g YmUgDQpkZWxpdmVyaWVkIGluIHRoZSBuZXcgREhDUHY2IG9wdGlvbiB0byB0aGUgQjQuIFdoZW4g cmVjZWl2aW5nIHRoZSBGUUROLCBCNCBoYXMgDQp0byBkbyB0aGUgRE5TIHJlc29sdXRpb24gdG8g Z2V0IHRoZSBBRlRSIElQdjYgYWRkcmVzcy4gVGhlIEZRRE4gb2YgdGhlIEFGVFIgaGFzIA0KdG8g YmUgY29uZmlndXJlZCBpbiB0aGUgRE5TIHNlcnZlci4gU28sIEkgdGhpbmsmbmJzcDtkZWxpdmVy aW5nIHRoZSBJUHY2IGFkZHJlc3MgDQpvZiB0aGUgQUZUUiZuYnNwO2RpcmVjdGx5IHRvIHRoZSBC NCBpcyBiZXR0ZXIuJm5ic3A7V2UgY2FuIHVzZSBESENQdjYgb3B0aW9uIHRvIA0KZG8gdGhpcy4g VGhlIGFkZHJlc3Mgb2YgdGhlIEFGVFIgb25seSBuZWVkcyB0byBiZSBjb25maWd1cmVkIGluIHRo ZSBESENQdjYgDQpzZXJ2ZXIuPC9GT05UPjwvRElWPg0KPERJVj48Rk9OVCBjb2xvcj0jMDAwMDgw PjwvRk9OVD4mbmJzcDs8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+PEZPTlQgY29sb3I9IzAwMDA4MCBzaXplPTIgZmFj ZT1WZXJkYW5hPkJlc3QgUmVnYXJkcyw8L0ZPTlQ+PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPjxGT05UIGNvbG9yPSMw MDAwODAgc2l6ZT0yIGZhY2U9VmVyZGFuYT5aaGVucWlhbmcgDQpMaSZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOzwvRk9O VD48Rk9OVCBjb2xvcj0jMDAwMDgwIHNpemU9MiBmYWNlPVZlcmRhbmE+PC9GT05UPjwvRElWPg0K PERJVj48Rk9OVCBjb2xvcj0jMDAwMDgwIHNpemU9MiANCmZhY2U9VmVyZGFuYT4yMDExLTA2LTMw PC9GT05UPjwvRElWPjwvQk9EWT48L0hUTUw+DQo= --=====003_Dragon562262161636_=====-- From lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com Thu Jun 30 04:17:38 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A70B21F87FD for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 04:17:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Quarantine-ID: <44vliw0TZM4s> X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "MIME-Version" X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.074 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.074 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.451, BAYES_00=-2.599, RELAY_IS_221=2.222] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 44vliw0TZM4s for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 04:17:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (imss.chinamobile.com [221.130.253.135]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8226721F87EA for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 04:17:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imss.chinamobile.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44FC2A708 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 19:17:31 +0800 (CST) Received: from mail.chinamobile.com (unknown [10.1.28.22]) by imss.chinamobile.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C8E8A6E4 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 19:17:31 +0800 (CST) To: softwires@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 From: lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 19:17:29 +0800 Message-ID: X-Mailer: Lotus Domino Web Server Release 6.5.6 March 06, 2007 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on jtgsml01/servers/cmcc(Release 6.5.6|March 06, 2007) at 2011-06-30 19:17:31 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.8231-6.8.0.1017-18230.005 X-TM-AS-Result: No--5.362-7.0-31-10 X-imss-scan-details: No--5.362-7.0-31-10;No--5.362-7.0-31-10 X-TM-AS-User-Approved-Sender: No;No X-TM-AS-User-Blocked-Sender: No Subject: [Softwires] Why not use AFTR IPv6 address for the new DHCPv6 option? X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 11:17:38 -0000 Hi All, One question about the new DHCPv6 option for AFTR discovery. Maybe I missed= the previous discussion. Sorry for that. According to draft-ietf-softwire-ds-lite-tunnel-option, a FQDN is suggested= to be deliveried in the new DHCPv6 option to the B4. When receiving the FQ= DN, B4 has to do the DNS resolution to get the AFTR IPv6 address. The FQDN = of the AFTR has to be configured in the DNS server. So, I think delivering = the IPv6 address of the AFTR directly to the B4 is better. We can use DHCPv= 6 option to do this. The address of the AFTR only needs to be configured in= the DHCPv6 server. Best Regards, Zhenqiang Li =20 2011-06-30= From washam.fan@gmail.com Thu Jun 30 22:04:45 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94CEA21F8708 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 22:04:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t-wdiNk2dqQ3 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 22:04:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1CFA21F856D for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 22:04:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wwe5 with SMTP id 5so1946436wwe.13 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 22:04:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=oAAe1Xcm4Y20izCCs4JGaE7lGb1FbTrFTrj7nLn9cBI=; b=juIgGSbfsbeRmo8REukBtMQwiwq8qGHVAP4ZKBpSLbg7dKuzx3a1Yc04+6PoLXj9/4 S43CVe++L/VZX3j0WjCcQS+4MmntSW1ObylsXv7PVxF2Qew41gH8FPM+kPaW4tK5mXrs R4VCG7yyEt2Zg/NW5D9e/NDlGDDsr0MLkARg0= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.140.141 with SMTP id e13mr2348074wej.85.1309496682864; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 22:04:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.49.149 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Jun 2011 22:04:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 13:04:42 +0800 Message-ID: From: Washam Fan To: lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: softwires@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Softwires] Why not use AFTR IPv6 address for the new DHCPv6 option? X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 05:04:45 -0000 Hi, There was a debate between ip literal v.s. fqdn for this issue. Please search the old mail archive to check it out. If I recall correctly, a major argument would be, many ISPs prefer dns server to do load balancing over dhcp server. Thanks, washam 2011/6/30 : > Hi All, > > One question about the new DHCPv6 option for AFTR discovery. Maybe I miss= ed the previous discussion. Sorry for that. > According to draft-ietf-softwire-ds-lite-tunnel-option, a FQDN is suggest= ed to be deliveried in the new DHCPv6 option to the B4. When receiving the = FQDN, B4 has to do the DNS resolution to get the AFTR IPv6 address. The FQD= N of the AFTR has to be configured in the DNS server. So, I think deliverin= g the IPv6 address of the AFTR directly to the B4 is better. We can use DHC= Pv6 option to do this. The address of the AFTR only needs to be configured = in the DHCPv6 server. > > Best Regards, > Zhenqiang Li > 2011-06-30 > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >