From wang.cui1@zte.com.cn Mon Sep 3 23:19:44 2012 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 77A8421F852E for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 23:19:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -97.753 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-97.753 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345, 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 DzrIQMwoYycs for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 23:19:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx5.zte.com.cn (mx5.zte.com.cn [63.217.80.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 381F821F849C for ; Mon, 3 Sep 2012 23:19:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.168.119] by mx5.zte.com.cn with surfront esmtp id 23255271095904; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 14:12:48 +0800 (CST) Received: from mse01.zte.com.cn (unknown [10.30.3.20]) by Websense Email Security Gateway with ESMTPS id DCB0771F7AF; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 14:15:34 +0800 (CST) Received: from notes_smtp.zte.com.cn ([10.30.1.239]) by mse01.zte.com.cn with ESMTP id q846JIPA063485; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 14:19:18 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from wang.cui1@zte.com.cn) To: Yong Cui , Suresh Krishnan , Softwires WG MIME-Version: 1.0 X-KeepSent: 06DBFAF6:748B8AD7-48257A6F:0020B6B8; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.6 March 06, 2007 Message-ID: From: wang.cui1@zte.com.cn Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 14:18:59 +0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on notes_smtp/zte_ltd(Release 8.5.3FP1 HF212|May 23, 2012) at 2012-09-04 14:19:16, Serialize complete at 2012-09-04 14:19:16 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0022B36348257A6F_=" X-MAIL: mse01.zte.com.cn q846JIPA063485 Subject: [Softwires] =?gb2312?b?16q3ojogTmV3IFZlcnNpb24gTm90aWZpY2F0aW9u?= =?gb2312?b?IGZvcglkcmFmdC1odS1zb2Z0d2lyZS1tdWx0aWNhc3QtcmFkaXVzLWV4dC0w?= =?gb2312?b?Mi50eHQ=?= 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, 04 Sep 2012 06:19:44 -0000 This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 0022B36348257A6F_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" A new version of I-D, draft-hu-softwire-multicast-radius-ext-02.txt has been successfully submitted by Cui Wang and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-hu-softwire-multicast-radius-ext Revision: 02 Title: RADIUS Extensions for IPv4-Embedded Multicast and Unicast IPv6 Prefixes Creation date: 2012-09-04 WG ID: Individual Submission Number of pages: 15 URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hu-softwire-multicast-radius-ext-02.txt Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hu-softwire-multicast-radius-ext Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hu-softwire-multicast-radius-ext-02 Diff: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-hu-softwire-multicast-radius-ext-02 Abstract: This document specifies a new Remote Authentication Dial-In User Service (RADIUS) attribute to carry the Multicast-Prefixes-64 information, aiming to delivery the Multicast and Unicast IPv6 Prefixes to be used to build multicast and unicast IPv4-Embedded IPv6 addresses. this RADIUS attribute is defined based on the equivalent DHCPv6 OPTION_PREFIX64 option. Dear, All, We have submitted the -02 version of multicast-radius-ext draft. The revision is made according to the offline discussions. And the main changes are: * change the title to reflect the recent changes to DS-Lite multicast draft * change the introduction to clarify the RADIUS extentions is generic for any 4-6-4 scenario and 4-6 scenario , not limited to DS-Lite multicast * change the RADIUS attribute Name to Multicast-Prefixes-64, instead of previous DS-Lite-Multicast-Prefixes * change the author list Please review the new version, and any comment is welcome. BRs Linda Wang -------------------------------------------------------- ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail (and any attachment transmitted herewith) is privileged and confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s). If you are not an intended recipient, any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other dissemination or use of the information contained is strictly prohibited. If you have received this mail in error, please delete it and notify us immediately. --=_alternative 0022B36348257A6F_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
A new version of I-D, draft-hu-softwire-multicast-radius-ext-02.txt
has been successfully submitted by Cui Wang and posted to the
IETF repository.

Filename:                  draft-hu-softwire-multicast-radius-ext
Revision:                  02
Title:                                   RADIUS Extensions for IPv4-Embedded Multicast and Unicast IPv6 Prefixes
Creation date:                  2012-09-04
WG ID:                                   Individual Submission
Number of pages: 15
URL:             http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hu-softwire-multicast-radius-ext-02.txt
Status:          http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hu-softwire-multicast-radius-ext
Htmlized:        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hu-softwire-multicast-radius-ext-02
Diff:            http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-hu-softwire-multicast-radius-ext-02

Abstract:
  This document specifies a new Remote Authentication Dial-In User
  Service (RADIUS) attribute to carry the Multicast-Prefixes-64
  information, aiming to delivery the Multicast and Unicast IPv6
  Prefixes to be used to build multicast and unicast IPv4-Embedded IPv6
  addresses. this RADIUS attribute is defined based on the equivalent
  DHCPv6 OPTION_PREFIX64 option.

Dear, All,

   We have submitted the -02 version of multicast-radius-ext draft.  
The revision is made according to the offline discussions. And the main changes are:

  * change the title to reflect the recent changes to DS-Lite multicast draft
  * change the introduction to clarify the RADIUS extentions is generic for any 4-6-4 scenario and 4-6 scenario , not limited to DS-Lite multicast
  * change the RADIUS attribute Name to Multicast-Prefixes-64, instead of previous DS-Lite-Multicast-Prefixes
  * change the author list
 Please review the new version, and any comment is welcome.

BRs
Linda Wang
 
 






--------------------------------------------------------
ZTE Information Security Notice: The information contained in this mail (and any attachment transmitted herewith) is privileged and confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s).  If you are not an intended recipient, any disclosure, reproduction, distribution or other dissemination or use of the information contained is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this mail in error, please delete it and notify us immediately.

--=_alternative 0022B36348257A6F_=-- From tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com Tue Sep 4 13:18:40 2012 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 50FB621E803F for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 13:18:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.367 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.367 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.232, 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 0D3Kp+XM2EY6 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 13:18:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com (mail-ie0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B844121E8082 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2012 13:18:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ieak13 with SMTP id k13so6648419iea.31 for ; Tue, 04 Sep 2012 13:18:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:x-forwarded-message-id:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-antivirus:x-antivirus-status; bh=CAKeeCczLVMzfhDBc8omeWPZZCqgNVrfcMBE4vnl7Qw=; b=1Jf6KXFMel8aY4JLh5Uc0BOtW6C0YY/fKyBp30YQ7erWyOSrPMfXmhh30NLeW/rrai wjlYlbf/Azt7XgAdn54RJz/a0ven+BxPBkpQps+TeQiPWq4f0m0IND8ZFG5dUIhwrxA/ xoshF8W9AVxYv2lxRgLdLkvlXFeH0H89i2WBTw91pbYotqAkcq83w4UVUKVF+zL0eE25 qD86P/xdBexSqd+XzZmFKOjQiVyc0Mia5PuxSWvt8oktV/PO0WpjzZ+l6tAVG3whOLoC cBLJOerdhjWRwyBaz56pTkeVrmCu9CwlG0JIv981Ovc9chhbJhzPLvrDjRKr6kOUn+gL c4qw== Received: by 10.43.103.193 with SMTP id dj1mr18495272icc.2.1346789918959; Tue, 04 Sep 2012 13:18:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (dsl-173-206-40-163.tor.primus.ca. [173.206.40.163]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ng5sm13527846igc.0.2012.09.04.13.18.37 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 04 Sep 2012 13:18:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5046621C.7050205@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 16:18:36 -0400 From: Tom Taylor User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120824 Thunderbird/15.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Softwires References: <20120904200129.23301.37971.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20120904200129.23301.37971.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20120904200129.23301.37971.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 120904-0, 04/09/2012), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Subject: [Softwires] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-tsou-softwire-6rd-multicast-02.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: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 20:18:40 -0000 This was basically a keep-alive update. There were a few editorial changes. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for draft-tsou-softwire-6rd-multicast-02.txt Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 13:01:29 -0700 From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com CC: cathy.zhou@huawei.com, jihui@chinatelecom.com.cn, tina.tsou.zouting@huawei.com A new version of I-D, draft-tsou-softwire-6rd-multicast-02.txt has been successfully submitted by Tom Taylor and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-tsou-softwire-6rd-multicast Revision: 02 Title: IPv6 Multicast Using Native IPv4 Capabilities in a 6rd Deployment Creation date: 2012-09-04 WG ID: Individual Submission Number of pages: 8 URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tsou-softwire-6rd-multicast-02.txt Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tsou-softwire-6rd-multicast Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tsou-softwire-6rd-multicast-02 Diff: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-tsou-softwire-6rd-multicast-02 Abstract: This document describes how IPv6 multicast can be extended across an IPv4 network to an IPv6 host, using the native multicast capabilities of the IPv4 network. The IETF Secretariat From internet-drafts@ietf.org Wed Sep 5 01:10:53 2012 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 2C70A21F869F; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 01:10:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.247 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.247 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.352, 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 VdTPfB-Lh5D1; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 01:10:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AA6821F8699; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 01:10:52 -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: 4.34 Message-ID: <20120905081052.19828.60376.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 01:10:52 -0700 Cc: softwires@ietf.org Subject: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-02.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, 05 Sep 2012 08:10:53 -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 : Mapping of Address and Port with Encapsulation (MAP) Author(s) : Ole Troan Wojciech Dec Xing Li Congxiao Bao Satoru Matsushima Tetsuya Murakami Filename : draft-ietf-softwire-map-02.txt Pages : 29 Date : 2012-09-05 Abstract: This document describes a mechanism for transporting IPv4 packets across an IPv6 network, and a generic mechanism for mapping between IPv6 addresses and IPv4 addresses and transport layer ports. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-02 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-softwire-map-02 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From ichiroumakino@gmail.com Wed Sep 5 01:17:05 2012 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 3341E21F86B3 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 01:17:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 58fEQMVM1xVX for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 01:17:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ee0-f44.google.com (mail-ee0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7508321F865F for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 01:17:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eekb45 with SMTP id b45so95443eek.31 for ; Wed, 05 Sep 2012 01:17:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:from:mime-version:content-type:subject:date:in-reply-to:to :references:message-id:x-mailer; bh=ghdPf4NbNvnFxZ1gA6f3DKbka3f8tQ3dq9tqlsmmmos=; b=y/11bA/gw+42qC38uAWsAbm25D7hMKroi2quXuffNV9eqNmervwSfDfRxLvDgwAcx2 AK1kAoZaupnVYjXav/Uom7cntXQ1ikBFCeNtywGReYNHBwFW60OpAjU8dZEWq23+SYIJ 8hYvFJcWoc7x2vlSxQqji2x1UFM8doSU2UNAZWNAu+Y2G6ctB636revsN3a0577z3Mr1 mIi67jyOtI1byl8e9+1BeQa4euG7kU/0cZuFdcvjSjvtdZxtcXDvjC+EgqH5uKhK3OeU TtKBONodTHSxyitcozwIeHN7+8dYcHwpppU69AZzOO2rg/8QIrZnhb6w7SplydPuKgwm oHWw== Received: by 10.14.172.129 with SMTP id t1mr29695981eel.34.1346833022490; Wed, 05 Sep 2012 01:17:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:420:44ff:fd17:ec30:b128:b467:6482? ([2001:420:44ff:fd17:ec30:b128:b467:6482]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y1sm2125159eel.0.2012.09.05.01.16.59 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 05 Sep 2012 01:17:01 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Ole Troan From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ole_Tr=F8an?= Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A1DB9621-4C30-461F-A811-094EE37C2D50"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 10:16:56 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20120905081052.19828.60376.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: Softwires-wg WG References: <20120905081052.19828.60376.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Message-Id: <9EF3AE55-57C1-45D0-A90C-1EEA2A3D1D86@employees.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-02.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, 05 Sep 2012 08:17:05 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_A1DB9621-4C30-461F-A811-094EE37C2D50 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii hello, here is an update of the MAP document resulting from the changed = direction from Vancouver. this _should_ be "draft-ietf-softwire-map-01 - MAP-T". cheers, Ole >=20 > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts = directories. > This draft is a work item of the Softwires Working Group of the IETF. >=20 > Title : Mapping of Address and Port with Encapsulation = (MAP) > Author(s) : Ole Troan > Wojciech Dec > Xing Li > Congxiao Bao > Satoru Matsushima > Tetsuya Murakami > Filename : draft-ietf-softwire-map-02.txt > Pages : 29 > Date : 2012-09-05 >=20 > Abstract: > This document describes a mechanism for transporting IPv4 packets > across an IPv6 network, and a generic mechanism for mapping between > IPv6 addresses and IPv4 addresses and transport layer ports. >=20 >=20 > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map >=20 > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-02 >=20 > A diff from the previous version is available at: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-softwire-map-02 >=20 >=20 > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires --Apple-Mail=_A1DB9621-4C30-461F-A811-094EE37C2D50 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIMNjCCBUAw ggQooAMCAQICEGaZIlj/wiu8ZryksFIoEYswDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwgd0xCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVT MRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1c3QgTmV0d29y azE7MDkGA1UECxMyVGVybXMgb2YgdXNlIGF0IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9ycGEg KGMpMDkxHjAcBgNVBAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlkYXRlZDE3MDUGA1UEAxMuVmVyaVNpZ24g Q2xhc3MgMSBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1YnNjcmliZXIgQ0EgLSBHMzAeFw0xMjA4MDgwMDAwMDBaFw0x MjEwMDcyMzU5NTlaMIIBAzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlT aWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsTPXd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9S UEEgSW5jb3JwLiBieSBSZWYuLExJQUIuTFREKGMpOTgxHjAcBgNVBAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZh bGlkYXRlZDEmMCQGA1UECxMdRGlnaXRhbCBJRCBDbGFzcyAxIC0gTmV0c2NhcGUxEjAQBgNVBAMU CU9sZSBUcvhhbjEjMCEGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYUb3Ryb2FuQGVtcGxveWVlcy5vcmcwggEiMA0GCSqG SIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQC03pLE1GnPvefnf0B0ZI3TpY/FJatqxd6P2bERWXj0bVj6 SKO/HWyK6Bai3b16kDZew5FDUu6+DsEhh9+bxsiCCstTE+121pcEKgU8F4tazGy05x1Z60Xo1Lkl ki/3OtYCie+VfmQkjmH+y9UuJWPgZcnzTpIC8ztdAzvvrrD0/oIWIwkpSvS4VHE0It1xRGDs3pb2 IEgCEOUEg5wNvxMHbLwa15EZYK4p4LypgF+ObeR+JklVes2pObQCLuyGa8TXYJsIIpm5D3NthBEw UvdS+/I3EzSeVTDw0dwfzW82XQls1CwKNI/IUS0huB5ZBaThB8LbEaThwU44/osFcyTNAgMBAAGj gdIwgc8wCQYDVR0TBAIwADBEBgNVHSAEPTA7MDkGC2CGSAGG+EUBBxcBMCowKAYIKwYBBQUHAgEW HGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9ycGEwCwYDVR0PBAQDAgWgMB0GA1UdJQQWMBQGCCsG AQUFBwMEBggrBgEFBQcDAjBQBgNVHR8ESTBHMEWgQ6BBhj9odHRwOi8vaW5kYzFkaWdpdGFsaWQt ZzMtY3JsLnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9JbmRDMURpZ2l0YWxJRC1HMy5jcmwwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAD ggEBAIJIENsyJjrFsF3StCcQWSFBGL6ddUZPfF0vkXmDJujOFnIcv0V9UBiWKkBGxI/J/1faLOWz LJYk25GZv83tPYrXKCuUL0vEtVswc+qLw0EeVbKlr6bILZvcj7P4aJePWYMoJCuWnC60HnEndAOm T1/d7xCRCcBjFmZDyM0FSO17VTjP6+Kxg3IGujWu+/sB0OD8CkipsjJikeIxIY/ujK8waMg2ePgz 4UQjTG1K2r5PfWeXHcG09Gcu5qBN9q0YKNfWMYwSIEfs61J/0cbrh399X+1+9uc3ygBs2F6NR0kM 0cDe/DfyWPwvnwXlzEXuC5xRMXNrWQ6cWQd0mryIZ5owggbuMIIF1qADAgECAhBxFWYFSuSRIU3p vET5rNPcMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMIHKMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24s IEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxOjA4BgNVBAsTMShjKSAxOTk5 IFZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuIC0gRm9yIGF1dGhvcml6ZWQgdXNlIG9ubHkxRTBDBgNVBAMTPFZlcmlT aWduIENsYXNzIDEgUHVibGljIFByaW1hcnkgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBBdXRob3JpdHkgLSBHMzAe Fw0wOTA1MDEwMDAwMDBaFw0xOTA0MzAyMzU5NTlaMIHdMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEXMBUGA1UEChMO VmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxOzA5BgNVBAsT MlRlcm1zIG9mIHVzZSBhdCBodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcnBhIChjKTA5MR4wHAYD VQQLExVQZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0ZWQxNzA1BgNVBAMTLlZlcmlTaWduIENsYXNzIDEgSW5k aXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3JpYmVyIENBIC0gRzMwggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIB AQDtxEffKigdfAZru9chMslsE4/psY1BTjT32gvjavpliCALERPpm+BJTotv1QHQXw1HkYpaTHQ+ P8aRCbtMNJ6NbqGCUWL3aXZYlgevnhQYB09avZ/SMbJUGXNGahlCEewScyGN9dwwzeXZVgoxxTZt KRSXvS3aiUcZiNhLBD3rtjxnHnQAEw3QhtqTZ/gzA64aPGtpePbALI7hgz93+Zn//p9SWsK0hwrY bKlHwVQpZUM+SsCWH8Gt93evbLEEXr7BtpQtl5AtJ9K7HumDaoT2xLKuIwZlJqUnWCsHIrRvpmJI Gnfy1VAnminTlvso9bokdmLjjFnr+27VQsS+Qcf1AgMBAAGjggK5MIICtTA0BggrBgEFBQcBAQQo MCYwJAYIKwYBBQUHMAGGGGh0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbTASBgNVHRMBAf8ECDAGAQH/ AgEAMHAGA1UdIARpMGcwZQYLYIZIAYb4RQEHFwEwVjAoBggrBgEFBQcCARYcaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cu dmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL2NwczAqBggrBgEFBQcCAjAeGhxodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20v cnBhMDQGA1UdHwQtMCswKaAnoCWGI2h0dHA6Ly9jcmwudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3BjYTEtZzMuY3Js MA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIBBjBuBggrBgEFBQcBDARiMGChXqBcMFowWDBWFglpbWFnZS9naWYwITAf MAcGBSsOAwIaBBRLa7kolgYMu9BSOJsprEsHiyEFGDAmFiRodHRwOi8vbG9nby52ZXJpc2lnbi5j b20vdnNsb2dvMS5naWYwLgYDVR0RBCcwJaQjMCExHzAdBgNVBAMTFlByaXZhdGVMYWJlbDQtMjA0 OC0xMTgwHQYDVR0OBBYEFHlHYQhB/TgEokvntcz1Q/ZJKxH4MIHxBgNVHSMEgekwgeahgdCkgc0w gcoxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVTMRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNp Z24gVHJ1c3QgTmV0d29yazE6MDgGA1UECxMxKGMpIDE5OTkgVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4gLSBGb3Ig YXV0aG9yaXplZCB1c2Ugb25seTFFMEMGA1UEAxM8VmVyaVNpZ24gQ2xhc3MgMSBQdWJsaWMgUHJp bWFyeSBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0aW9uIEF1dGhvcml0eSAtIEczghEAi1t1VoRUhQsAz684SM6xpDANBgkq hkiG9w0BAQUFAAOCAQEAOU3PQZmBtakFtVI46TmEiWzkNKha59hsCUwkGrpZpIc7cyHxk4HPv2hj Wmf+NYUrocNdo0rCOhndMNbMTe/x0oGXylRaQ783i3qOGY0PQ6iM8q9gsxWKs5WcPOCesyeYpDVy F+X8Kl2H04oNwtFFKvjA9KwqkzrVrhJwCOv7O+J37OgrZDV2zbra4NHLFNZxWJu+1T59ttnoJMUk ZkxdkR92sxc+fw3GIYkvsze4of9csm1J3mVSQvsOiNLtSh2/S+P4zHL6SA5ljknI1viZmDu3lD4x cQaH+mxZUy7X3yvtX2MArBXtA7hVFozGaAPnIqhzC7G8oNpSWN0KDn/BgjGCBIswggSHAgEBMIHy MIHdMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlT aWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxOzA5BgNVBAsTMlRlcm1zIG9mIHVzZSBhdCBodHRwczovL3d3dy52 ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcnBhIChjKTA5MR4wHAYDVQQLExVQZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0ZWQxNzA1 BgNVBAMTLlZlcmlTaWduIENsYXNzIDEgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3JpYmVyIENBIC0gRzMCEGaZ Ilj/wiu8ZryksFIoEYswCQYFKw4DAhoFAKCCAm0wGAYJKoZIhvcNAQkDMQsGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAc BgkqhkiG9w0BCQUxDxcNMTIwOTA1MDgxNjU2WjAjBgkqhkiG9w0BCQQxFgQU9JQ6mynBGLWDkCFW VA0nJ2ezew0wggEDBgkrBgEEAYI3EAQxgfUwgfIwgd0xCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVTMRcwFQYDVQQKEw5W ZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1c3QgTmV0d29yazE7MDkGA1UECxMy VGVybXMgb2YgdXNlIGF0IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9ycGEgKGMpMDkxHjAcBgNV BAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlkYXRlZDE3MDUGA1UEAxMuVmVyaVNpZ24gQ2xhc3MgMSBJbmRp dmlkdWFsIFN1YnNjcmliZXIgQ0EgLSBHMwIQZpkiWP/CK7xmvKSwUigRizCCAQUGCyqGSIb3DQEJ EAILMYH1oIHyMIHdMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNV BAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxOzA5BgNVBAsTMlRlcm1zIG9mIHVzZSBhdCBodHRw czovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcnBhIChjKTA5MR4wHAYDVQQLExVQZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxp ZGF0ZWQxNzA1BgNVBAMTLlZlcmlTaWduIENsYXNzIDEgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3JpYmVyIENB IC0gRzMCEGaZIlj/wiu8ZryksFIoEYswDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQAEggEAMRI6bjNpEd8RQ/sigOOX xMc0tch8tTZFSBdnG/gieJoX55kVYNf2W9yMry3mTTQrDvRZ5epJsvPf+A3uckKr928crWKMV7pT USY4FPz3ofmE7BCoQe6a6wnCc3U7PVyAdcX3Qtr/CnFPTLN4d5iQW/aycb91wLCotzfhHuJ2tgvA Od69amWwPfiPZ0BQBu3GVXKfBfwR3BNMiVHfTultc3I8nIMPLlWPPJIgmDfwSK0APCCoUCmFmnvT qk46ftjtLByiRUammRzGBvx3Vpvv44nERRKtUzEcjNzzwVIuw7n+xMogTrxVYSkrzr//QORPd4kR yHMIgfgW4dWRx63UOwAAAAAAAA== --Apple-Mail=_A1DB9621-4C30-461F-A811-094EE37C2D50-- From ichiroumakino@gmail.com Wed Sep 5 01:31:28 2012 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 C81EE21F8694 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 01:31:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 JV8OEX-IpwKC for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 01:31:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC34921F8690 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 01:31:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eaai11 with SMTP id i11so83803eaa.31 for ; Wed, 05 Sep 2012 01:31:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:from:mime-version:content-type:subject:date:in-reply-to:to :references:message-id:x-mailer; bh=UDJLeGLQ6n4RgFmp5JVHdRX1s8uTmSq2hS+VMkye1N0=; b=ff0pywi6w1nkZDIeXFaHtBnrQkjZ7JV2/e1+yXDFblXJMALO4R8yObNOe84HUnUBIE n+EcWABkDW3hNAB+6VCX2LNM7/vHv+fV3QGfmL/nb3DCcef9ozkNyrHvoR/+wlzazmiP Cmh4G+l4//lr1heUhYbUeChx+4eA8h19uot8qRWQQoQPbHHm8JJJUkvVTwYvfgCYxaXz HszahJ9v3x56vNzI9vtI6OKI6fl865LuWvu7NkgWsNDRnoNawYuPV0Bq/OVb6p1WEDDJ CIzGv+39DDQ1aqRrSw64Wz3uYjDGguoM/TqjcYXSxB/TcWNXXi3jVtCyRqu6+8oN6swg cluw== Received: by 10.14.5.67 with SMTP id 43mr29423951eek.15.1346833886806; Wed, 05 Sep 2012 01:31:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:420:44ff:fd17:ec30:b128:b467:6482? ([2001:420:44ff:fd17:ec30:b128:b467:6482]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v3sm2149638eep.10.2012.09.05.01.31.23 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 05 Sep 2012 01:31:25 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Ole Troan From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ole_Tr=F8an?= Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8BC32451-A599-41EB-8242-9210DAB7DABC"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2012 10:31:20 +0200 In-Reply-To: <9EF3AE55-57C1-45D0-A90C-1EEA2A3D1D86@employees.org> To: Softwires-wg WG References: <20120905081052.19828.60376.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9EF3AE55-57C1-45D0-A90C-1EEA2A3D1D86@employees.org> Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-02.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, 05 Sep 2012 08:31:28 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_8BC32451-A599-41EB-8242-9210DAB7DABC Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 to avoid any confusion. the '-' below indicates subtraction. cheers, Ole On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:16 , Ole Tr=F8an wrote: > hello, >=20 > here is an update of the MAP document resulting from the changed = direction from Vancouver. >=20 > this _should_ be "draft-ietf-softwire-map-01 - MAP-T". >=20 > cheers, > Ole >=20 >>=20 >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts = directories. >> This draft is a work item of the Softwires Working Group of the IETF. >>=20 >> Title : Mapping of Address and Port with Encapsulation = (MAP) >> Author(s) : Ole Troan >> Wojciech Dec >> Xing Li >> Congxiao Bao >> Satoru Matsushima >> Tetsuya Murakami >> Filename : draft-ietf-softwire-map-02.txt >> Pages : 29 >> Date : 2012-09-05 >>=20 >> Abstract: >> This document describes a mechanism for transporting IPv4 packets >> across an IPv6 network, and a generic mechanism for mapping between >> IPv6 addresses and IPv4 addresses and transport layer ports. >>=20 >>=20 >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map >>=20 >> There's also a htmlized version available at: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-02 >>=20 >> A diff from the previous version is available at: >> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-softwire-map-02 >>=20 >>=20 >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> Softwires mailing list >> Softwires@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >=20 --Apple-Mail=_8BC32451-A599-41EB-8242-9210DAB7DABC Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIMNjCCBUAw ggQooAMCAQICEGaZIlj/wiu8ZryksFIoEYswDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwgd0xCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVT MRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1c3QgTmV0d29y azE7MDkGA1UECxMyVGVybXMgb2YgdXNlIGF0IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9ycGEg KGMpMDkxHjAcBgNVBAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlkYXRlZDE3MDUGA1UEAxMuVmVyaVNpZ24g Q2xhc3MgMSBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1YnNjcmliZXIgQ0EgLSBHMzAeFw0xMjA4MDgwMDAwMDBaFw0x MjEwMDcyMzU5NTlaMIIBAzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlT aWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsTPXd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9S UEEgSW5jb3JwLiBieSBSZWYuLExJQUIuTFREKGMpOTgxHjAcBgNVBAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZh bGlkYXRlZDEmMCQGA1UECxMdRGlnaXRhbCBJRCBDbGFzcyAxIC0gTmV0c2NhcGUxEjAQBgNVBAMU CU9sZSBUcvhhbjEjMCEGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYUb3Ryb2FuQGVtcGxveWVlcy5vcmcwggEiMA0GCSqG SIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQC03pLE1GnPvefnf0B0ZI3TpY/FJatqxd6P2bERWXj0bVj6 SKO/HWyK6Bai3b16kDZew5FDUu6+DsEhh9+bxsiCCstTE+121pcEKgU8F4tazGy05x1Z60Xo1Lkl ki/3OtYCie+VfmQkjmH+y9UuJWPgZcnzTpIC8ztdAzvvrrD0/oIWIwkpSvS4VHE0It1xRGDs3pb2 IEgCEOUEg5wNvxMHbLwa15EZYK4p4LypgF+ObeR+JklVes2pObQCLuyGa8TXYJsIIpm5D3NthBEw UvdS+/I3EzSeVTDw0dwfzW82XQls1CwKNI/IUS0huB5ZBaThB8LbEaThwU44/osFcyTNAgMBAAGj gdIwgc8wCQYDVR0TBAIwADBEBgNVHSAEPTA7MDkGC2CGSAGG+EUBBxcBMCowKAYIKwYBBQUHAgEW HGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9ycGEwCwYDVR0PBAQDAgWgMB0GA1UdJQQWMBQGCCsG AQUFBwMEBggrBgEFBQcDAjBQBgNVHR8ESTBHMEWgQ6BBhj9odHRwOi8vaW5kYzFkaWdpdGFsaWQt ZzMtY3JsLnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9JbmRDMURpZ2l0YWxJRC1HMy5jcmwwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAD ggEBAIJIENsyJjrFsF3StCcQWSFBGL6ddUZPfF0vkXmDJujOFnIcv0V9UBiWKkBGxI/J/1faLOWz LJYk25GZv83tPYrXKCuUL0vEtVswc+qLw0EeVbKlr6bILZvcj7P4aJePWYMoJCuWnC60HnEndAOm T1/d7xCRCcBjFmZDyM0FSO17VTjP6+Kxg3IGujWu+/sB0OD8CkipsjJikeIxIY/ujK8waMg2ePgz 4UQjTG1K2r5PfWeXHcG09Gcu5qBN9q0YKNfWMYwSIEfs61J/0cbrh399X+1+9uc3ygBs2F6NR0kM 0cDe/DfyWPwvnwXlzEXuC5xRMXNrWQ6cWQd0mryIZ5owggbuMIIF1qADAgECAhBxFWYFSuSRIU3p vET5rNPcMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMIHKMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24s IEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxOjA4BgNVBAsTMShjKSAxOTk5 IFZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuIC0gRm9yIGF1dGhvcml6ZWQgdXNlIG9ubHkxRTBDBgNVBAMTPFZlcmlT aWduIENsYXNzIDEgUHVibGljIFByaW1hcnkgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBBdXRob3JpdHkgLSBHMzAe Fw0wOTA1MDEwMDAwMDBaFw0xOTA0MzAyMzU5NTlaMIHdMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEXMBUGA1UEChMO VmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxOzA5BgNVBAsT MlRlcm1zIG9mIHVzZSBhdCBodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcnBhIChjKTA5MR4wHAYD VQQLExVQZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0ZWQxNzA1BgNVBAMTLlZlcmlTaWduIENsYXNzIDEgSW5k aXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3JpYmVyIENBIC0gRzMwggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIB AQDtxEffKigdfAZru9chMslsE4/psY1BTjT32gvjavpliCALERPpm+BJTotv1QHQXw1HkYpaTHQ+ P8aRCbtMNJ6NbqGCUWL3aXZYlgevnhQYB09avZ/SMbJUGXNGahlCEewScyGN9dwwzeXZVgoxxTZt KRSXvS3aiUcZiNhLBD3rtjxnHnQAEw3QhtqTZ/gzA64aPGtpePbALI7hgz93+Zn//p9SWsK0hwrY bKlHwVQpZUM+SsCWH8Gt93evbLEEXr7BtpQtl5AtJ9K7HumDaoT2xLKuIwZlJqUnWCsHIrRvpmJI Gnfy1VAnminTlvso9bokdmLjjFnr+27VQsS+Qcf1AgMBAAGjggK5MIICtTA0BggrBgEFBQcBAQQo MCYwJAYIKwYBBQUHMAGGGGh0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbTASBgNVHRMBAf8ECDAGAQH/ AgEAMHAGA1UdIARpMGcwZQYLYIZIAYb4RQEHFwEwVjAoBggrBgEFBQcCARYcaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cu dmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL2NwczAqBggrBgEFBQcCAjAeGhxodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20v cnBhMDQGA1UdHwQtMCswKaAnoCWGI2h0dHA6Ly9jcmwudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3BjYTEtZzMuY3Js MA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIBBjBuBggrBgEFBQcBDARiMGChXqBcMFowWDBWFglpbWFnZS9naWYwITAf MAcGBSsOAwIaBBRLa7kolgYMu9BSOJsprEsHiyEFGDAmFiRodHRwOi8vbG9nby52ZXJpc2lnbi5j b20vdnNsb2dvMS5naWYwLgYDVR0RBCcwJaQjMCExHzAdBgNVBAMTFlByaXZhdGVMYWJlbDQtMjA0 OC0xMTgwHQYDVR0OBBYEFHlHYQhB/TgEokvntcz1Q/ZJKxH4MIHxBgNVHSMEgekwgeahgdCkgc0w gcoxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVTMRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNp Z24gVHJ1c3QgTmV0d29yazE6MDgGA1UECxMxKGMpIDE5OTkgVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4gLSBGb3Ig YXV0aG9yaXplZCB1c2Ugb25seTFFMEMGA1UEAxM8VmVyaVNpZ24gQ2xhc3MgMSBQdWJsaWMgUHJp bWFyeSBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0aW9uIEF1dGhvcml0eSAtIEczghEAi1t1VoRUhQsAz684SM6xpDANBgkq hkiG9w0BAQUFAAOCAQEAOU3PQZmBtakFtVI46TmEiWzkNKha59hsCUwkGrpZpIc7cyHxk4HPv2hj Wmf+NYUrocNdo0rCOhndMNbMTe/x0oGXylRaQ783i3qOGY0PQ6iM8q9gsxWKs5WcPOCesyeYpDVy F+X8Kl2H04oNwtFFKvjA9KwqkzrVrhJwCOv7O+J37OgrZDV2zbra4NHLFNZxWJu+1T59ttnoJMUk ZkxdkR92sxc+fw3GIYkvsze4of9csm1J3mVSQvsOiNLtSh2/S+P4zHL6SA5ljknI1viZmDu3lD4x cQaH+mxZUy7X3yvtX2MArBXtA7hVFozGaAPnIqhzC7G8oNpSWN0KDn/BgjGCBIswggSHAgEBMIHy MIHdMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlT aWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxOzA5BgNVBAsTMlRlcm1zIG9mIHVzZSBhdCBodHRwczovL3d3dy52 ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcnBhIChjKTA5MR4wHAYDVQQLExVQZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0ZWQxNzA1 BgNVBAMTLlZlcmlTaWduIENsYXNzIDEgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3JpYmVyIENBIC0gRzMCEGaZ Ilj/wiu8ZryksFIoEYswCQYFKw4DAhoFAKCCAm0wGAYJKoZIhvcNAQkDMQsGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAc BgkqhkiG9w0BCQUxDxcNMTIwOTA1MDgzMTIxWjAjBgkqhkiG9w0BCQQxFgQUNlchIb6v/bX0A8rj PIqAtvbtJ9EwggEDBgkrBgEEAYI3EAQxgfUwgfIwgd0xCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVTMRcwFQYDVQQKEw5W ZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1c3QgTmV0d29yazE7MDkGA1UECxMy VGVybXMgb2YgdXNlIGF0IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9ycGEgKGMpMDkxHjAcBgNV BAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlkYXRlZDE3MDUGA1UEAxMuVmVyaVNpZ24gQ2xhc3MgMSBJbmRp dmlkdWFsIFN1YnNjcmliZXIgQ0EgLSBHMwIQZpkiWP/CK7xmvKSwUigRizCCAQUGCyqGSIb3DQEJ EAILMYH1oIHyMIHdMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNV BAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxOzA5BgNVBAsTMlRlcm1zIG9mIHVzZSBhdCBodHRw czovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcnBhIChjKTA5MR4wHAYDVQQLExVQZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxp ZGF0ZWQxNzA1BgNVBAMTLlZlcmlTaWduIENsYXNzIDEgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3JpYmVyIENB IC0gRzMCEGaZIlj/wiu8ZryksFIoEYswDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQAEggEAVCYiG62WzwNNlgSzpliW 8ds9e/66fxxCvT9TvVOgIeMbERZwqMmWMx2OAWYbXFwUAaVueOxUwXIRW1f9AITfSAw0aJRZphM3 /jhYNGHWFD591g1UluLNI0RmPqyeG0f4/0Thqi6FHkHDFKR5BCgS9uFg16Kha4ucRaWlK49S3woo ev3E8MPbQHLaoAHDo13o9J+9lbDVl3sKQhRydSr53wJm6HJFSGFSGY1CpkBHowbOucIr+3xUOrmK DDtYc2AMw1nnr8j4gpViKDVpazu136H4HDNhyWmBlNlzj8DFtLMJDv/81qlesDnQ5Hu6vkLvYBis xxs/tglghpGBzkzaiQAAAAAAAA== --Apple-Mail=_8BC32451-A599-41EB-8242-9210DAB7DABC-- From wdec.ietf@gmail.com Thu Sep 6 08:32:53 2012 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 5264721F86A8 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 08:32:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.148 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.148 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 nttXbHDQVof9 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 08:32:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ee0-f44.google.com (mail-ee0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AD6C21F865B for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 08:32:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eekb45 with SMTP id b45so837752eek.31 for ; Thu, 06 Sep 2012 08:32:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=MRDYOUPeNJAjXb2dHHlK2N0JPnrsdyaFmL/QslZAJnI=; b=inKGvwHVXhmBtIJBYstSBBmAXx8h/Io5sjv1PLRKJ8Nh0ae/tGt0bnUMSXbenKev7U 3EK7pZPAAF2ZqgJdjzf3uzuBYJvODeWox1MQndlG8JlHBhwH9sDtJJ+DMxJPeGdUCNAH QW4z9U5XCj6HhwqEYz7W6QMwJSS3/KMLctYwL0HD2tteEq2hskSSTzxC/arhENGAOIyt 45zoZ0oiWk36K3JHGIOcjueuEHjd2re1C3aK45TkJo+4Z69CB3hX+cjKAfxNPxz+G4R8 fAeQzv045M9vCPo8QDNMOcz7dkwuu4EL0sbOMXbn2QGMclWEh83vj4xq27c0cRQng00J cB2A== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.14.207.9 with SMTP id m9mr3655791eeo.5.1346945559712; Thu, 06 Sep 2012 08:32:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.45.68 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 08:32:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20120905081052.19828.60376.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9EF3AE55-57C1-45D0-A90C-1EEA2A3D1D86@employees.org> Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 17:32:39 +0200 Message-ID: From: Wojciech Dec To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ole_Tr=F8an?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b33dc309e532704c90a3313 Cc: Softwires-wg WG Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-02.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: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 15:32:53 -0000 --047d7b33dc309e532704c90a3313 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable With the standalone MAP-T draft coming shortly... On 5 September 2012 10:31, Ole Tr=F8an wrote: > to avoid any confusion. > the '-' below indicates subtraction. > > cheers, > Ole > > > On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:16 , Ole Tr=F8an wrote: > > > hello, > > > > here is an update of the MAP document resulting from the changed > direction from Vancouver. > > > > this _should_ be "draft-ietf-softwire-map-01 - MAP-T". > > > > cheers, > > Ole > > > >> > >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > >> This draft is a work item of the Softwires Working Group of the IETF. > >> > >> Title : Mapping of Address and Port with Encapsulation > (MAP) > >> Author(s) : Ole Troan > >> Wojciech Dec > >> Xing Li > >> Congxiao Bao > >> Satoru Matsushima > >> Tetsuya Murakami > >> Filename : draft-ietf-softwire-map-02.txt > >> Pages : 29 > >> Date : 2012-09-05 > >> > >> Abstract: > >> This document describes a mechanism for transporting IPv4 packets > >> across an IPv6 network, and a generic mechanism for mapping between > >> IPv6 addresses and IPv4 addresses and transport layer ports. > >> > >> > >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map > >> > >> There's also a htmlized version available at: > >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-02 > >> > >> A diff from the previous version is available at: > >> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-softwire-map-02 > >> > >> > >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Softwires mailing list > >> Softwires@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > > --047d7b33dc309e532704c90a3313 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable With the standalone MAP-T draft coming shortly...

On 5 September 2012 10:31, Ole Tr=F8an <otroan@employees.org<= /a>> wrote:
to avoid any confusion.
the '-' below indicates subtraction.

cheers,
Ole


On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:16 , Ole Tr=F8an wrote:

> hello,
>
> here is an update of the MAP document resulting from the changed direc= tion from Vancouver.
>
> this _should_ be "draft-ietf-softwire-map-01 - MAP-T".
>
> cheers,
> Ole
>
>>
>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts= directories.
>> This draft is a work item of the Softwires Working Group of the IE= TF.
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0Title =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 : Mapping of Address and Port= with Encapsulation (MAP)
>> =A0 =A0 =A0Author(s) =A0 =A0 =A0 : Ole Troan
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Wojciech Dec
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Xing Li
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Congxiao Bao
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Satoru Matsushima<= br> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Tetsuya Murakami >> =A0 =A0 =A0Filename =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0: draft-ietf-softwire-map-02.tx= t
>> =A0 =A0 =A0Pages =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 : 29
>> =A0 =A0 =A0Date =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0: 2012-09-05
>>
>> Abstract:
>> =A0This document describes a mechanism for transporting IPv4 packe= ts
>> =A0across an IPv6 network, and a generic mechanism for mapping bet= ween
>> =A0IPv6 addresses and IPv4 addresses and transport layer ports. >>
>>
>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-m= ap
>>
>> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-02=
>>
>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-sof= twire-map-02
>>
>>
>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>> = ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Softwires mailing list
>> Softwires@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>


_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires


--047d7b33dc309e532704c90a3313-- From despres.remi@laposte.net Thu Sep 6 08:51:49 2012 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 C96BF21F8744 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 08:51:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.693 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.693 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.256, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] 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 OHJ39I7itx0R for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 08:51:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp21.services.sfr.fr (smtp21.services.sfr.fr [93.17.128.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F5E521F86FD for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 08:51:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from filter.sfr.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by msfrf2119.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id BCDF670000B9; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 17:51:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.0.21] (per92-10-88-166-221-144.fbx.proxad.net [88.166.221.144]) by msfrf2119.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 3E1067000085; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 17:51:47 +0200 (CEST) X-SFR-UUID: 20120906155147254.3E1067000085@msfrf2119.sfr.fr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9mi_Despr=E9s?= Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 17:51:46 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <97D870E6-6DC0-4A98-9A40-2A16AE6AE1E9@laposte.net> References: <20120905081052.19828.60376.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: Suresh Krishnan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: "softwires@ietf.org WG" Subject: [Softwires] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-02.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: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 15:51:50 -0000 Suresh, May I suggest that, in in the future, the MAP-E specification be in a = "MAP-E" document rather than in a generic "MAP" document (e.g. in = draft-ietf-softwire-map-e-00). This will become particularly relevant when the MAP-T document will = follow. Regards, RD D=E9but du message r=E9exp=E9di=E9 : > De : internet-drafts@ietf.org > Date : 2012-09-05 10:10 > =C0 : i-d-announce@ietf.org > Cc : softwires@ietf.org > Objet : [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-02.txt >=20 >=20 > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts = directories. > This draft is a work item of the Softwires Working Group of the IETF. >=20 > Title : Mapping of Address and Port with Encapsulation = (MAP) > Author(s) : Ole Troan > Wojciech Dec > Xing Li > Congxiao Bao > Satoru Matsushima > Tetsuya Murakami > Filename : draft-ietf-softwire-map-02.txt > Pages : 29 > Date : 2012-09-05 >=20 > Abstract: > This document describes a mechanism for transporting IPv4 packets > across an IPv6 network, and a generic mechanism for mapping between > IPv6 addresses and IPv4 addresses and transport layer ports. >=20 >=20 > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map >=20 > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-02 >=20 > A diff from the previous version is available at: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-softwire-map-02 >=20 >=20 > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires From phdgang@gmail.com Thu Sep 6 20:52:33 2012 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 2EE4921F8694 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 20:52:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.200, 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 EH8WOuEFrpFA for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 20:52:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com (mail-vb0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E80D21F8690 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 20:52:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vbbez10 with SMTP id ez10so2586453vbb.31 for ; Thu, 06 Sep 2012 20:52:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=kO0MTGoTFPSAZtUr1FK+ujmE3QTe7g2RmL4OLP4RLac=; b=VK6lxabT2B7RJr0wjV23qc2YsRaXCRU5WDjUkCJy7jjnqatPeC00F9vQ/at2SkUWC1 oSg+Ai4g4jZwpfEVnrzOlBfpLU9bE6xdVdh+96Lm13Uqn0zLzrJVyoWgaD08bvzdNXyp za/e6/rgW9wZm74m7JaOS3j2wS5zWQ5Dq8dIA/atiQ5hkg4DL7cacA+7x8qHHpJX9NQi JXn+SXLoZwMs9SYdq9dJ/G3N/dwuvP9LY0DNUmubi6tFRkc5tYyZmO8DdMY6ikA6QsBQ 202uB6Gi1bEF2wiG/bZGs9iygKINygiuGCa7qnHq0UUuswvuqOSShVzlqvwrY4zfBYfD RRaQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.58.65.10 with SMTP id t10mr5928795ves.48.1346989951759; Thu, 06 Sep 2012 20:52:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.58.114.231 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 20:52:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20120905081052.19828.60376.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9EF3AE55-57C1-45D0-A90C-1EEA2A3D1D86@employees.org> Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 11:52:31 +0800 Message-ID: From: GangChen To: Wojciech Dec Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Softwires-wg WG Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-02.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: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 03:52:33 -0000 Hello Woj and all, Before you submit the MAP-T, I have a question whether we need it given MAP-E is staying on standard track. If I understood correctly, the motivation doing MAP-T is mainly driven by ACL requirements. I don't see there are any needs from an operator side on this point. Therefore, I don't see any needs publishing MAP-T as a WG draft. In order to not disturb the thread, I would create a new thread to discuss = that. BRs Gang 2012/9/6, Wojciech Dec : > With the standalone MAP-T draft coming shortly... > > On 5 September 2012 10:31, Ole Tr=F8an wrote: > >> to avoid any confusion. >> the '-' below indicates subtraction. >> >> cheers, >> Ole >> >> >> On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:16 , Ole Tr=F8an wrote: >> >> > hello, >> > >> > here is an update of the MAP document resulting from the changed >> direction from Vancouver. >> > >> > this _should_ be "draft-ietf-softwire-map-01 - MAP-T". >> > >> > cheers, >> > Ole >> > >> >> >> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >> directories. >> >> This draft is a work item of the Softwires Working Group of the IETF. >> >> >> >> Title : Mapping of Address and Port with Encapsulation >> (MAP) >> >> Author(s) : Ole Troan >> >> Wojciech Dec >> >> Xing Li >> >> Congxiao Bao >> >> Satoru Matsushima >> >> Tetsuya Murakami >> >> Filename : draft-ietf-softwire-map-02.txt >> >> Pages : 29 >> >> Date : 2012-09-05 >> >> >> >> Abstract: >> >> This document describes a mechanism for transporting IPv4 packets >> >> across an IPv6 network, and a generic mechanism for mapping between >> >> IPv6 addresses and IPv4 addresses and transport layer ports. >> >> >> >> >> >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map >> >> >> >> There's also a htmlized version available at: >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-02 >> >> >> >> A diff from the previous version is available at: >> >> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-softwire-map-02 >> >> >> >> >> >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >> >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Softwires mailing list >> >> Softwires@ietf.org >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >> > >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Softwires mailing list >> Softwires@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >> >> > From fibrib@gmail.com Thu Sep 6 21:13:42 2012 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 7159021E8056 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 21:13:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.984 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.984 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.614, 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 hA1lJb14wIm5 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 21:13:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ee0-f44.google.com (mail-ee0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2976A21F84F5 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 21:13:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eekb45 with SMTP id b45so1030063eek.31 for ; Thu, 06 Sep 2012 21:13:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=EnUTtn+34DBH+uUkX/hlvTrI8wTmT5+RL5omVGtlyO8=; b=WCaKHcL+oVCLBEVGRtABRS387DSTiYedeeGy18sJUHWCYLbkl6pm4QuTX6GL886j6H yBCQFDLE9qireopaApIxYJyZ0WhPEaT0Gb05xo3k89Z9zLeyPSdhjH9QgelTNpx+5W17 Htes31QxnHwsMTvcWAxdZJXplFXw5Itla/mUCWxyOMaSdAGVzPs1cNELitESNyRvCN2r 8C4xdbsUv//l2gcjMyi6v2G3jsV+vmngolS7KtT2vkWoZYKM1QZfLu5IiFieM/0XZm8K ruY3z4p8zVYue7N1nCWiFIw4R9bcjk4RMhuTZCRQQNpcB56Eai1iuchl3dOQBXikxny6 w01w== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.14.172.129 with SMTP id t1mr5940188eel.34.1346991220341; Thu, 06 Sep 2012 21:13:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.97.9 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 21:13:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20120905081052.19828.60376.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9EF3AE55-57C1-45D0-A90C-1EEA2A3D1D86@employees.org> Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 13:13:40 +0900 Message-ID: From: Maoke To: GangChen Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b603c123439ca04c914d59c Cc: Softwires-wg WG Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-02.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: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 04:13:42 -0000 --047d7b603c123439ca04c914d59c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 2012/9/7 GangChen > Hello Woj and all, > > Before you submit the MAP-T, I have a question whether we need it > given MAP-E is staying on standard track. > If I understood correctly, the motivation doing MAP-T is mainly driven > by ACL requirements. I don't see there are any needs from an operator > side on this point. Therefore, I don't see any needs publishing MAP-T > as a WG draft. > unfortunately, however, your understanding, IMHO, is not fairly correct. on the other hand, my company has had a very concrete use-case where MAP-T is needed. - maoke > In order to not disturb the thread, I would create a new thread to discus= s > that. > > BRs > > Gang > > > 2012/9/6, Wojciech Dec : > > With the standalone MAP-T draft coming shortly... > > > > On 5 September 2012 10:31, Ole Tr=F8an wrote: > > > >> to avoid any confusion. > >> the '-' below indicates subtraction. > >> > >> cheers, > >> Ole > >> > >> > >> On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:16 , Ole Tr=F8an wrote: > >> > >> > hello, > >> > > >> > here is an update of the MAP document resulting from the changed > >> direction from Vancouver. > >> > > >> > this _should_ be "draft-ietf-softwire-map-01 - MAP-T". > >> > > >> > cheers, > >> > Ole > >> > > >> >> > >> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > >> directories. > >> >> This draft is a work item of the Softwires Working Group of the IET= F. > >> >> > >> >> Title : Mapping of Address and Port with Encapsulati= on > >> (MAP) > >> >> Author(s) : Ole Troan > >> >> Wojciech Dec > >> >> Xing Li > >> >> Congxiao Bao > >> >> Satoru Matsushima > >> >> Tetsuya Murakami > >> >> Filename : draft-ietf-softwire-map-02.txt > >> >> Pages : 29 > >> >> Date : 2012-09-05 > >> >> > >> >> Abstract: > >> >> This document describes a mechanism for transporting IPv4 packets > >> >> across an IPv6 network, and a generic mechanism for mapping betwee= n > >> >> IPv6 addresses and IPv4 addresses and transport layer ports. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map > >> >> > >> >> There's also a htmlized version available at: > >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-02 > >> >> > >> >> A diff from the previous version is available at: > >> >> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-softwire-map-02 > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > >> >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > >> >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> Softwires mailing list > >> >> Softwires@ietf.org > >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > >> > > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Softwires mailing list > >> Softwires@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > >> > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > --047d7b603c123439ca04c914d59c Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

2012/9/7 GangChen <= phdgang@gmail.com>
Hello Woj and all,

Before you submit the MAP-T, I have a question whether we need it
given MAP-E is staying on standard track.
If I understood correctly, the motivation doing MAP-T is mainly driven
by ACL requirements. I don't see there are any needs from an operator side on this point. Therefore, I don't see any needs publishing MAP-T as a WG draft.
=A0
unfortunately, however, y= our understanding, IMHO, is not fairly=A0correct. on the other hand, my com= pany has had a very concrete use-case where MAP-T is needed. - maoke
=A0
In order to not disturb the thread, I would create a new thread to discuss = that.

BRs

Gang


2012/9/6, Wojciech Dec <wdec.ietf= @gmail.com>:
> With the standalone MAP-T draf= t coming shortly...
>
> On 5 September 2012 10:31, Ole Tr=F8an <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
>
>> to avoid any confusion.
>> the '-' below indicates subtraction.
>>
>> cheers,
>> Ole
>>
>>
>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:16 , Ole Tr=F8an wrote:
>>
>> > hello,
>> >
>> > here is an update of the MAP document resulting from the chan= ged
>> direction from Vancouver.
>> >
>> > this _should_ be "draft-ietf-softwire-map-01 - MAP-T&quo= t;.
>> >
>> > cheers,
>> > Ole
>> >
>> >>
>> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Intern= et-Drafts
>> directories.
>> >> This draft is a work item of the Softwires Working Group = of the IETF.
>> >>
>> >> =A0 =A0 =A0Title =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 : Mapping of Address= and Port with Encapsulation
>> (MAP)
>> >> =A0 =A0 =A0Author(s) =A0 =A0 =A0 : Ole Troan
>> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Wojciech = Dec
>> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Xing Li >> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Congxiao = Bao
>> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Satoru Ma= tsushima
>> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Tetsuya M= urakami
>> >> =A0 =A0 =A0Filename =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0: draft-ietf-softwire-= map-02.txt
>> >> =A0 =A0 =A0Pages =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 : 29
>> >> =A0 =A0 =A0Date =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0: 2012-09-05
>> >>
>> >> Abstract:
>> >> =A0This document describes a mechanism for transporting I= Pv4 packets
>> >> =A0across an IPv6 network, and a generic mechanism for ma= pping between
>> >> =A0IPv6 addresses and IPv4 addresses and transport layer = ports.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-s= oftwire-map
>> >>
>> >> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-m= ap-02
>> >>
>> >> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> >> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft= -ietf-softwire-map-02
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >> >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Softwires mailing list
>> >> Softwires@ietf.org<= /a>
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Softwires mailing list
>> Softwires@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

--047d7b603c123439ca04c914d59c-- From phdgang@gmail.com Thu Sep 6 23:04:35 2012 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 10ACC21F853A for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 23:04:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.419 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.419 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.180, 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 c9mxPYwuZXhI for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 23:04:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-f44.google.com (mail-vb0-f44.google.com [209.85.212.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4117F21F8539 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 23:04:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vbbez10 with SMTP id ez10so2767527vbb.31 for ; Thu, 06 Sep 2012 23:04:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=p61thDFJw+bcxrPmaBglDE9jDu/u8X52bYxBiYUJVa0=; b=VHkGNb0caKkoRFXzHVFxRHbQczsQM1woPZpdsvu2p3hY16rWZDF/22KIIhYNswW0y0 gLLgRomzbvGrdpsCGDlgkSkS8eARVZOp/iKwMPvkfG/JuvuGqx94URJB5IygrUsIVd9h R3oLcaw1wGue4LWJWY6CEDaV5ekBmKnAUf1uRelRLSPQ1mTNadTX30zE2gWG3tCw0ZhU 0KfqaPaNVu9iEWF9Iz1UB/fl2toP64kNffRLr81SBygo9du3llAlv1qUj9G9+VV7hsGJ G3sdIVvINAba8SgOBR37tIrNIr7Y4typia0siuFxpn0aUYqRapEv1lstpcc6obb6T0iS fL8g== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.58.74.3 with SMTP id p3mr6419959vev.27.1346997871695; Thu, 06 Sep 2012 23:04:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.58.114.231 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 23:04:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 14:04:31 +0800 Message-ID: From: GangChen To: softwires Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [Softwires] Is ACL really a point to drive MAP-T solution? 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, 07 Sep 2012 06:04:35 -0000 Hello all, As I identified, there is no issue to apply ACL either on fix networks or mobile networks. Why most operators don't have issue, why there is the issue for special operator. What is the issue? MAP-T and MAP-E have same address format. And, we have a good decision to standard the MAP-E solution. Even ACL is needed, MAP-E is sufficient. There is no need to create another flavor Considering above, MAP-T is superfluous. I don't think we need spend much energy on that. If there is something I missed, please kindly identify it before submitting the MAP-T document. Many thanks Gang From despres.remi@laposte.net Fri Sep 7 01:11:54 2012 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 9725521F8715 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 01:11:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.221 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.872, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] 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 oNIrsQNWJQIK for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 01:11:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp23.services.sfr.fr (smtp23.services.sfr.fr [93.17.128.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80C6421F8694 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 01:11:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from filter.sfr.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by msfrf2318.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 5F1DE70000BC; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 10:11:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.0.21] (per92-10-88-166-221-144.fbx.proxad.net [88.166.221.144]) by msfrf2318.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 05C35700007A; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 10:11:48 +0200 (CEST) X-SFR-UUID: 20120907081149237.05C35700007A@msfrf2318.sfr.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9mi_Despr=E9s?= In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 10:11:48 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <10EDE93D-E651-46FD-92A3-7C49046ACB37@laposte.net> References: To: GangChen X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: softwires Subject: Re: [Softwires] Is ACL really a point to drive MAP-T solution? 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, 07 Sep 2012 08:11:54 -0000 Gang, I think you are on a wrong track here. 1. In Vancouver it was decided that MAP-E would be standard track, and = both MAP-T and 4rd experimental. There is no longer any way to prevent = those who want experimental MAP-T to have it. 2. The argument against ACLs is also an argument against 4rd.=20 If you agree, we can discuss how to best stop this thread. RD Le 2012-09-07 =E0 08:04, GangChen a =E9crit : > Hello all, >=20 > As I identified, there is no issue to apply ACL either on fix networks > or mobile networks. Why most operators don't have issue, why there is > the issue for special operator. What is the issue? >=20 > MAP-T and MAP-E have same address format. And, we have a good decision > to standard the MAP-E solution. >=20 > Even ACL is needed, MAP-E is sufficient. There is no need to create > another flavor >=20 > Considering above, MAP-T is superfluous. > I don't think we need spend much energy on that. > If there is something I missed, please kindly identify it before > submitting the MAP-T document. >=20 > Many thanks >=20 > Gang > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires From fibrib@gmail.com Fri Sep 7 01:20:02 2012 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 5653E21F86F2 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 01:20:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.186 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.186 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.113, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 X8LUqK3MYnV6 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 01:20:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com (mail-wi0-f172.google.com [209.85.212.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 838BC21F86F1 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 01:20:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wibhi8 with SMTP id hi8so1117786wib.13 for ; Fri, 07 Sep 2012 01:19:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=OHvfo69FUtHvtKgHmK0sPLGNuiFo1QIfYuOovNkwzDU=; b=zetB8o3WFmK81FDvM4eWYW7La/nn6WOPjfvIHcnqYguGEh3VaaF55RLah42kaZmRj4 4kiwg+ZWoR8O8bwIPD6MqkG7xF49Sews4qRF+ZhUYYkkZcmo9Ql3XbFFIHRTGf+ijDqk mG5757aDVWmFqU7Ino10lOmk4CUeM+JTStU5qkb1l8cixvjISiuAMS7ohiovEiDlFDj2 +Ehmh8yN7nFqus6fNZcBBJJn9I87k6+vq4TVbNqPZzecOkYrCHt4DqlqAPAcvxmV8wsz CqNd5VXoTXUvjwZKTKHj6JL2iP/wODI+C3fwNEl5qkKyQo4Op6+eAGqggT8dDZj+lcTH 2xXQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.162.141 with SMTP id y13mr2722268wek.14.1347005999450; Fri, 07 Sep 2012 01:19:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.37.78 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 01:19:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <10EDE93D-E651-46FD-92A3-7C49046ACB37@laposte.net> References: <10EDE93D-E651-46FD-92A3-7C49046ACB37@laposte.net> Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 17:19:59 +0900 Message-ID: From: Maoke To: =?ISO-8859-1?B?UultaSBEZXNwculz?= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e65b5db21b8c5604c91846aa Cc: softwires Subject: Re: [Softwires] Is ACL really a point to drive MAP-T solution? 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, 07 Sep 2012 08:20:02 -0000 --0016e65b5db21b8c5604c91846aa Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable i share the same view with Remi. and ACL is not the only reason that MAP-T is needed. - maoke 2012/9/7 R=E9mi Despr=E9s > Gang, > > I think you are on a wrong track here. > 1. In Vancouver it was decided that MAP-E would be standard track, and > both MAP-T and 4rd experimental. There is no longer any way to prevent > those who want experimental MAP-T to have it. > 2. The argument against ACLs is also an argument against 4rd. > > If you agree, we can discuss how to best stop this thread. > > RD > > > Le 2012-09-07 =E0 08:04, GangChen a =E9crit : > > > Hello all, > > > > As I identified, there is no issue to apply ACL either on fix networks > > or mobile networks. Why most operators don't have issue, why there is > > the issue for special operator. What is the issue? > > > > MAP-T and MAP-E have same address format. And, we have a good decision > > to standard the MAP-E solution. > > > > Even ACL is needed, MAP-E is sufficient. There is no need to create > > another flavor > > > > Considering above, MAP-T is superfluous. > > I don't think we need spend much energy on that. > > If there is something I missed, please kindly identify it before > > submitting the MAP-T document. > > > > Many thanks > > > > Gang > > _______________________________________________ > > Softwires mailing list > > Softwires@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > --0016e65b5db21b8c5604c91846aa Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
i share the same view with Remi. and ACL is not the only reason that MA= P-T is needed. - maoke
2012/9/7 R=E9mi Despr= =E9s <despres.remi@laposte.net>
Gang,

I think you are on a wrong track here.
1. In Vancouver it was decided that MAP-E would be standard track, and both= MAP-T and 4rd experimental. There is no longer any way to prevent those wh= o want experimental MAP-T to have it.
2. The argument against ACLs is also an argument against 4rd.

If you agree, we can discuss how to best stop this thread.

RD


Le 2012-09-07 =E0 08:04, GangChen a =E9crit :

> Hello all,
>
> As I identified, there is no issue to apply ACL either on fix networks=
> or mobile networks. Why most operators don't have issue, why there= is
> the issue for special operator. What is the issue?
>
> MAP-T and MAP-E have same address format. And, we have a good decision=
> to standard the MAP-E solution.
>
> Even ACL is needed, MAP-E is sufficient. There is no need to create > another flavor
>
> Considering above, MAP-T is superfluous.
> I don't think we need spend much energy on that.
> If there is something I missed, please kindly identify it before
> submitting the MAP-T document.
>
> Many thanks
>
> Gang
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> Softwires@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

--0016e65b5db21b8c5604c91846aa-- From despres.remi@laposte.net Fri Sep 7 01:49:56 2012 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 E7C9221F86DC for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 01:49:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.165 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.165 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.816, BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] 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 0qaZfK3O8+QT for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 01:49:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp23.services.sfr.fr (smtp23.services.sfr.fr [93.17.128.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1D8521F86BD for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 01:49:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from filter.sfr.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by msfrf2318.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 5DAAF700005A; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 10:49:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.0.21] (per92-10-88-166-221-144.fbx.proxad.net [88.166.221.144]) by msfrf2318.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 0AF477000143; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 10:49:55 +0200 (CEST) X-SFR-UUID: 20120907084955449.0AF477000143@msfrf2318.sfr.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9mi_Despr=E9s?= In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 10:49:54 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <354DB9C8-B8EB-4123-AE8F-521E36455522@laposte.net> References: <10EDE93D-E651-46FD-92A3-7C49046ACB37@laposte.net> To: Maoke X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: softwires Subject: Re: [Softwires] Is ACL really a point to drive MAP-T solution? 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, 07 Sep 2012 08:49:57 -0000 2012-09-07 =E0 10:19, Maoke: >=20 > i share the same view with Remi. and ACL is not the only reason that = MAP-T is needed. - maoke Yes, we do agree that work on experimental MAP-T can continue in = Softwire (as decided in Vancouver) But lets avoid confusion concerning my position: I am not personally one = of those who believe MAP-T is needed. Regards, RD From roberta.maglione@telecomitalia.it Fri Sep 7 02:03:54 2012 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 7CD1921F85EA for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 02:03:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.14 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.14 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, 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 mSEwtxMWKKID for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 02:03:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from GRFEDG701BA020.telecomitalia.it (grfedg701ba020.telecomitalia.it [156.54.233.200]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52C1B21F8567 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 02:03:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grfhub704ba020.griffon.local (10.188.101.117) by GRFEDG701BA020.telecomitalia.it (10.188.45.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.245.1; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 11:03:48 +0200 Received: from GRFMBX704BA020.griffon.local ([10.188.101.15]) by grfhub704ba020.griffon.local ([10.188.101.117]) with mapi; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 11:03:48 +0200 From: Maglione Roberta To: 'GangChen' , softwires Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 11:03:47 +0200 Thread-Topic: [Softwires] Is ACL really a point to drive MAP-T solution? Thread-Index: Ac2MvqyKF8OGW/SdRVugrfj3h9LdXAAF8D1g Message-ID: <282BBE8A501E1F4DA9C775F964BB21FE519702F1A6@GRFMBX704BA020.griffon.local> References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US x-ti-disclaimer: Disclaimer1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Softwires] Is ACL really a point to drive MAP-T solution? 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, 07 Sep 2012 09:03:54 -0000 Hello Gang, I do see some difference between MAP-E and MAP-T regarding the applicat= ion of ACL. Let's consider the following scenarios: - when a destination is outside of the MAP domain in case of MAP-E the CE u= ses as IPv6 destination the IPv6 address of the MAP BR while for MAP-T it u= ses the IPv4 address of the destination mapped in IPv6 by using the MAP IPv= 6 rule. If I need to apply an ACL that matches a destination outside of the= map domain I can only do that by using MAP-T; - another example is how to apply an ACL that matches UDP or TCP packets on= the BNG. My understanding is that this cannot be achieved with MAP-E, as t= he IPv4 packet is encapsulated in IPv6. These are just a couple of examples about ACL, there are use cases with ope= rational implications, that can be simply addressed by MAP-T. Thanks Best regards, Roberta -----Original Message----- From: softwires-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] On Beh= alf Of GangChen Sent: venerd=EC 7 settembre 2012 8.05 To: softwires Subject: [Softwires] Is ACL really a point to drive MAP-T solution? Hello all, As I identified, there is no issue to apply ACL either on fix networks or mobile networks. Why most operators don't have issue, why there is the issue for special operator. What is the issue? MAP-T and MAP-E have same address format. And, we have a good decision to standard the MAP-E solution. Even ACL is needed, MAP-E is sufficient. There is no need to create another flavor Considering above, MAP-T is superfluous. I don't think we need spend much energy on that. If there is something I missed, please kindly identify it before submitting the MAP-T document. Many thanks Gang _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle per= sone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dall= a conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abb= iate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di dar= ne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione= , Grazie. This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged = information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, pri= nting or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended r= ecipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sen= der by return e-mail, Thanks. From wdec.ietf@gmail.com Fri Sep 7 08:50:21 2012 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 6AA1521F8646 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 08:50:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.348 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.348 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.250, 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 Ta8awcTYbHar for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 08:50:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ee0-f44.google.com (mail-ee0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29D4621F86B1 for ; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 08:50:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eekb45 with SMTP id b45so1332368eek.31 for ; Fri, 07 Sep 2012 08:50:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=x9MRWq40Cm08Lt1bhoQI57nayL0CDN8PoHQyY1Hy1fw=; b=hNaENrn81sV9u3ffw4n5WdD2RVn6maqG/Vl2C/Now0urzHKIN6ITWEyrHzHVqnB6rx VxQR52Hm87VkTG++r6bK0TYVhPEYMqCPT5a4f6G2/c6mA4o0hXDWFTPB0Fy79XnSgmzS LDLgoS5EUduw5nzMhil5W8Tyg7wasa6itz21PhaZ07YxdHqtO8hsv+LGk5H4uIK3nu/F /n6vtwJZwC3GD+OOdsolZDEboXLh09FD0cQyZN1iE+q+FzF+8KxqFEfRJX51qV0fXGD0 p1xML/2M8/HnSTlC7GeuTNVsh0Maihtv/sx7Yv5+gsgPJdxG0l75GnNe/mAGvgz0O3+z neuQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.14.207.9 with SMTP id m9mr8691832eeo.5.1347033019317; Fri, 07 Sep 2012 08:50:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.45.68 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 08:50:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20120905081052.19828.60376.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <9EF3AE55-57C1-45D0-A90C-1EEA2A3D1D86@employees.org> Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 17:50:19 +0200 Message-ID: From: Wojciech Dec To: GangChen Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b33dc309dfdcd04c91e900e Cc: Softwires-wg WG Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-02.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: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 15:50:21 -0000 --047d7b33dc309dfdcd04c91e900e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It has been already decided that MAP-T is a WG draft on experimental track, with MAP-E on standards track. We've had Beijing, Paris, and lots of other meetings on that and we discussed that at length IMO so you can spare us the thread. Thanks, -Woj. On 7 September 2012 05:52, GangChen wrote: > Hello Woj and all, > > Before you submit the MAP-T, I have a question whether we need it > given MAP-E is staying on standard track. > If I understood correctly, the motivation doing MAP-T is mainly driven > by ACL requirements. I don't see there are any needs from an operator > side on this point. Therefore, I don't see any needs publishing MAP-T > as a WG draft. > In order to not disturb the thread, I would create a new thread to discus= s > that. > > BRs > > Gang > > > 2012/9/6, Wojciech Dec : > > With the standalone MAP-T draft coming shortly... > > > > On 5 September 2012 10:31, Ole Tr=F8an wrote: > > > >> to avoid any confusion. > >> the '-' below indicates subtraction. > >> > >> cheers, > >> Ole > >> > >> > >> On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:16 , Ole Tr=F8an wrote: > >> > >> > hello, > >> > > >> > here is an update of the MAP document resulting from the changed > >> direction from Vancouver. > >> > > >> > this _should_ be "draft-ietf-softwire-map-01 - MAP-T". > >> > > >> > cheers, > >> > Ole > >> > > >> >> > >> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > >> directories. > >> >> This draft is a work item of the Softwires Working Group of the IET= F. > >> >> > >> >> Title : Mapping of Address and Port with Encapsulati= on > >> (MAP) > >> >> Author(s) : Ole Troan > >> >> Wojciech Dec > >> >> Xing Li > >> >> Congxiao Bao > >> >> Satoru Matsushima > >> >> Tetsuya Murakami > >> >> Filename : draft-ietf-softwire-map-02.txt > >> >> Pages : 29 > >> >> Date : 2012-09-05 > >> >> > >> >> Abstract: > >> >> This document describes a mechanism for transporting IPv4 packets > >> >> across an IPv6 network, and a generic mechanism for mapping betwee= n > >> >> IPv6 addresses and IPv4 addresses and transport layer ports. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map > >> >> > >> >> There's also a htmlized version available at: > >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-02 > >> >> > >> >> A diff from the previous version is available at: > >> >> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-softwire-map-02 > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > >> >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > >> >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> Softwires mailing list > >> >> Softwires@ietf.org > >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > >> > > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Softwires mailing list > >> Softwires@ietf.org > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > >> > >> > > > --047d7b33dc309dfdcd04c91e900e Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It has been already decided that MAP-T is a WG draft on experimental track,= with MAP-E on standards track. We've had Beijing, Paris, and lots of o= ther meetings on that and we discussed that at length IMO so you can spare = us the thread.

Thanks,
-Woj.

On 7 September 2012 = 05:52, GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Woj and all,

Before you submit the MAP-T, I have a question whether we need it
given MAP-E is staying on standard track.
If I understood correctly, the motivation doing MAP-T is mainly driven
by ACL requirements. I don't see there are any needs from an operator side on this point. Therefore, I don't see any needs publishing MAP-T as a WG draft.
In order to not disturb the thread, I would create a new thread to discuss = that.

BRs

Gang


2012/9/6, Wojciech Dec <wdec.ietf= @gmail.com>:
> With the standalone MAP-T draf= t coming shortly...
>
> On 5 September 2012 10:31, Ole Tr=F8an <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
>
>> to avoid any confusion.
>> the '-' below indicates subtraction.
>>
>> cheers,
>> Ole
>>
>>
>> On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:16 , Ole Tr=F8an wrote:
>>
>> > hello,
>> >
>> > here is an update of the MAP document resulting from the chan= ged
>> direction from Vancouver.
>> >
>> > this _should_ be "draft-ietf-softwire-map-01 - MAP-T&quo= t;.
>> >
>> > cheers,
>> > Ole
>> >
>> >>
>> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Intern= et-Drafts
>> directories.
>> >> This draft is a work item of the Softwires Working Group = of the IETF.
>> >>
>> >> =A0 =A0 =A0Title =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 : Mapping of Address= and Port with Encapsulation
>> (MAP)
>> >> =A0 =A0 =A0Author(s) =A0 =A0 =A0 : Ole Troan
>> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Wojciech = Dec
>> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Xing Li >> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Congxiao = Bao
>> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Satoru Ma= tsushima
>> >> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Tetsuya M= urakami
>> >> =A0 =A0 =A0Filename =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0: draft-ietf-softwire-= map-02.txt
>> >> =A0 =A0 =A0Pages =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 : 29
>> >> =A0 =A0 =A0Date =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0: 2012-09-05
>> >>
>> >> Abstract:
>> >> =A0This document describes a mechanism for transporting I= Pv4 packets
>> >> =A0across an IPv6 network, and a generic mechanism for ma= pping between
>> >> =A0IPv6 addresses and IPv4 addresses and transport layer = ports.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-s= oftwire-map
>> >>
>> >> There's also a htmlized version available at:
>> >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-m= ap-02
>> >>
>> >> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>> >> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft= -ietf-softwire-map-02
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >> >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Softwires mailing list
>> >> Softwires@ietf.org<= /a>
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Softwires mailing list
>> Softwires@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>>
>>
>

--047d7b33dc309dfdcd04c91e900e-- From zehn.cao@gmail.com Sat Sep 8 08:03:09 2012 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 C8FF621F8559 for ; Sat, 8 Sep 2012 08:03:09 -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 yolmILfEuAoh for ; Sat, 8 Sep 2012 08:03:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com (mail-ie0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A0B521F855D for ; Sat, 8 Sep 2012 08:03:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ieak13 with SMTP id k13so740058iea.31 for ; Sat, 08 Sep 2012 08:03:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=h/bZFN11FRLjGyfK7mPJ+oyvycwdFgN2u/vNK1V04N8=; b=w8IE8g+k1g9PGibr2IGB9/tHRPCxVY8kGyQ+8xztHK/CqmSffXcNNoLlISgCReAiar wKmOjrhheE5tnkJrrIc4URAZ3FQEmH0WkpFKopNz6h/WsVD1JRo6hwzb8CFcW5g+dAN4 BwoJeW6w8isTtpPPQZJpDSaZ1adHVOExQCudJQmwaOeiI+XO/858Kl3Uw6Cu3avuMRlB Jlgf31DWW9jd+HLrUvoQzslpktYPIqFpWJY+M3IZwVo8bPj0hMftgMw5ar5zkL/sxw7i DDhESafQd7pgS1djlo5G5F7Y0FmtJ9h2OquEUjMseTIT5QbupMyerPt9BEgQjgeqsNWj JaNQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.202.5 with SMTP id ke5mr2801023igc.64.1347116584777; Sat, 08 Sep 2012 08:03:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.6.7 with HTTP; Sat, 8 Sep 2012 08:03:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <282BBE8A501E1F4DA9C775F964BB21FE519702F1A6@GRFMBX704BA020.griffon.local> References: <282BBE8A501E1F4DA9C775F964BB21FE519702F1A6@GRFMBX704BA020.griffon.local> Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2012 23:03:04 +0800 Message-ID: From: Zhen Cao To: Maglione Roberta Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: softwires Subject: Re: [Softwires] Is ACL really a point to drive MAP-T solution? 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: Sat, 08 Sep 2012 15:03:09 -0000 Hello Roberta, For most operators, I haven't heard the issues existed. If those use cases are just designed for this solution, this does not convince anybody including me, and we do not need to discuss a scenario which is to justify a solution. What's your unique network architecture compared with others, can you show us your concrete network architecture? What's your deployment plan for MAP-T and where? Thanks Zhen On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Maglione Roberta wrote: > Hello Gang, > I do see some difference between MAP-E and MAP-T regarding the applic= ation of ACL. > Let's consider the following scenarios: > - when a destination is outside of the MAP domain in case of MAP-E the CE= uses as IPv6 destination the IPv6 address of the MAP BR while for MAP-T it= uses the IPv4 address of the destination mapped in IPv6 by using the MAP I= Pv6 rule. If I need to apply an ACL that matches a destination outside of t= he map domain I can only do that by using MAP-T; > - another example is how to apply an ACL that matches UDP or TCP packets = on the BNG. My understanding is that this cannot be achieved with MAP-E, as= the IPv4 packet is encapsulated in IPv6. > > These are just a couple of examples about ACL, there are use cases with o= perational implications, that can be simply addressed by MAP-T. > > Thanks > Best regards, > Roberta > > -----Original Message----- > From: softwires-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] On B= ehalf Of GangChen > Sent: venerd=EC 7 settembre 2012 8.05 > To: softwires > Subject: [Softwires] Is ACL really a point to drive MAP-T solution? > > Hello all, > > As I identified, there is no issue to apply ACL either on fix networks > or mobile networks. Why most operators don't have issue, why there is > the issue for special operator. What is the issue? > > MAP-T and MAP-E have same address format. And, we have a good decision > to standard the MAP-E solution. > > Even ACL is needed, MAP-E is sufficient. There is no need to create > another flavor > > Considering above, MAP-T is superfluous. > I don't think we need spend much energy on that. > If there is something I missed, please kindly identify it before > submitting the MAP-T document. > > Many thanks > > Gang > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > > Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle p= ersone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante da= lla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora a= bbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di d= arne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzio= ne, Grazie. > > This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privilege= d information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, p= rinting or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended= recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the s= ender by return e-mail, Thanks. > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires From roberta.maglione@telecomitalia.it Sun Sep 9 01:09:54 2012 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 240CA21F84EA for ; Sun, 9 Sep 2012 01:09:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.79 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.929, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, 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 78AkWHcpFlPe for ; Sun, 9 Sep 2012 01:09:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from GRFEDG701BA020.telecomitalia.it (grfedg701ba020.telecomitalia.it [156.54.233.200]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D9C321F84E6 for ; Sun, 9 Sep 2012 01:09:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from GRFHUB702BA020.griffon.local (10.188.101.112) by GRFEDG701BA020.telecomitalia.it (10.188.45.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.245.1; Sun, 9 Sep 2012 10:09:42 +0200 Received: from GRFMBX704BA020.griffon.local ([10.188.101.15]) by GRFHUB702BA020.griffon.local ([10.188.101.112]) with mapi; Sun, 9 Sep 2012 10:09:42 +0200 From: Maglione Roberta To: Zhen Cao Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2012 10:08:08 +0200 Thread-Topic: [Softwires] Is ACL really a point to drive MAP-T solution? Thread-Index: Ac2N0w3uJ9sFQdPiTV+oXZVJ6OPyBwAjzEw7 Message-ID: <282BBE8A501E1F4DA9C775F964BB21FE5196FD4425@GRFMBX704BA020.griffon.local> References: <282BBE8A501E1F4DA9C775F964BB21FE519702F1A6@GRFMBX704BA020.griffon.local>, In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, it-IT Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, it-IT x-ti-disclaimer: Disclaimer1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: softwires Subject: Re: [Softwires] Is ACL really a point to drive MAP-T solution? 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: Sun, 09 Sep 2012 08:09:54 -0000 Hello Zhen, thanks for your comments. The use cases I described in my email are ju= st some examples of types of ACL=92s for IPv4 we have been using in our ne= twork for many years. I don=92t want to speak for other operators, but the= se are real application for ACL=92s in our current Broadband deployment. I haven=92t seen in your reply any explanation about how these scenarios = could be implemented with other solutions without changing the network arch= itecture.=20 In addition I=92d like to mention that ACL=92s are just one of the use case= s that could benefit from a MAP-T like solution, there are other examples,= I can describe them in more details, if you think it could be useful. Thanks and best regards Roberta ________________________________________ From: Zhen Cao [zehn.cao@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2012 5:03 PM To: Maglione Roberta Cc: GangChen; softwires Subject: Re: [Softwires] Is ACL really a point to drive MAP-T solution? Hello Roberta, For most operators, I haven't heard the issues existed. If those use cases are just designed for this solution, this does not convince anybody including me, and we do not need to discuss a scenario which is to justify a solution. What's your unique network architecture compared with others, can you show us your concrete network architecture? What's your deployment plan for MAP-T and where? Thanks Zhen On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Maglione Roberta wrote: > Hello Gang, > I do see some difference between MAP-E and MAP-T regarding the applic= ation of ACL. > Let's consider the following scenarios: > - when a destination is outside of the MAP domain in case of MAP-E the CE= uses as IPv6 destination the IPv6 address of the MAP BR while for MAP-T it= uses the IPv4 address of the destination mapped in IPv6 by using the MAP I= Pv6 rule. If I need to apply an ACL that matches a destination outside of t= he map domain I can only do that by using MAP-T; > - another example is how to apply an ACL that matches UDP or TCP packets = on the BNG. My understanding is that this cannot be achieved with MAP-E, as= the IPv4 packet is encapsulated in IPv6. > > These are just a couple of examples about ACL, there are use cases with o= perational implications, that can be simply addressed by MAP-T. > > Thanks > Best regards, > Roberta > > -----Original Message----- > From: softwires-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] On B= ehalf Of GangChen > Sent: venerd=EC 7 settembre 2012 8.05 > To: softwires > Subject: [Softwires] Is ACL really a point to drive MAP-T solution? > > Hello all, > > As I identified, there is no issue to apply ACL either on fix networks > or mobile networks. Why most operators don't have issue, why there is > the issue for special operator. What is the issue? > > MAP-T and MAP-E have same address format. And, we have a good decision > to standard the MAP-E solution. > > Even ACL is needed, MAP-E is sufficient. There is no need to create > another flavor > > Considering above, MAP-T is superfluous. > I don't think we need spend much energy on that. > If there is something I missed, please kindly identify it before > submitting the MAP-T document. > > Many thanks > > Gang > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > > Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle p= ersone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante da= lla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora a= bbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di d= arne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzio= ne, Grazie. > > This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privilege= d information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, p= rinting or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended= recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the s= ender by return e-mail, Thanks. > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires= From fibrib@gmail.com Sun Sep 9 18:07:46 2012 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 2E7AB21F84E1 for ; Sun, 9 Sep 2012 18:07:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.097 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.501, 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 yq5jmw-HUjMh for ; Sun, 9 Sep 2012 18:07:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D369121F84C8 for ; Sun, 9 Sep 2012 18:07:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eaai11 with SMTP id i11so608716eaa.31 for ; Sun, 09 Sep 2012 18:07:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=6w4hdwSVPN4ySjolxCnfy9DpJ78ftlKUYAXqowNTrL4=; b=jMBZB+bUuBRZ/NjCIuloxIzxLPIU5y+fdqWPI3a3z+LyrLNknhvQPVSw/rgbkOabIH A3wng4VGE1uutEGdzeRQQQNFlbafTTkmQFu/8/Zc5bHUKfVF4V8oGyoFZlJw6tqZMA0Y hT58c3yIBD3pYFjT+d54pne0806/5lB1Iq5NdpI0nNDg4exn8v+8ZOA0dHkplUAodYbt vsAtFPhxMCtZpnJigmqChXxzrD4swnJqI1Qd5gPp2S76g2Oelh7kh7yQjMckkjd8olVe fOldIVLq2JprkGj2gCSaDWKkdY/jigBObfMLIJC+UG0nYZx9sBg7SPoSgjiRd4y4qylO k40A== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.14.184.134 with SMTP id s6mr16925561eem.46.1347239263351; Sun, 09 Sep 2012 18:07:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.97.9 with HTTP; Sun, 9 Sep 2012 18:07:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <282BBE8A501E1F4DA9C775F964BB21FE519702F1A6@GRFMBX704BA020.griffon.local> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 10:07:43 +0900 Message-ID: From: Maoke To: Zhen Cao Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b3a7ff8b8330704c94e95bf Cc: softwires Subject: Re: [Softwires] Is ACL really a point to drive MAP-T solution? 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, 10 Sep 2012 01:07:46 -0000 --047d7b3a7ff8b8330704c94e95bf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable hi zhen, 2012/9/9 Zhen Cao > Hello Roberta, > > For most operators, I haven't heard the issues existed. If those use > cases are just designed for this solution, this does not convince > anybody including me, and we do not need to discuss a scenario which > is to justify a solution. > IMHO, ACL visibility is one of the consequence/result/benefit rather than design goal of the MAP-T. we have the RFCs for translation -> translation for IPv4/IPv6 -> stateless translation -> double translation, where we can see a clear movitation of having the MAP-T. double translation is a naturally established use case (and an indispensible part of the architecture) of stateless translation and MAP-T is the application of MAP address/port mapping algorithm for it. debating on the significance of MAP-T, even after the WG has formally committed continueing the work on it, IMHO, is waste of time of the WG. but if you would like to discuss about the significance, motivation, and use cases of translation/double-translation, you are welcome to mail me offline. thanks! - maoke > > What's your unique network architecture compared with others, can you > show us your concrete network architecture? What's your deployment > plan for MAP-T and where? > > Thanks > Zhen > > On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Maglione Roberta > wrote: > > Hello Gang, > > I do see some difference between MAP-E and MAP-T regarding the > application of ACL. > > Let's consider the following scenarios: > > - when a destination is outside of the MAP domain in case of MAP-E the > CE uses as IPv6 destination the IPv6 address of the MAP BR while for MAP-= T > it uses the IPv4 address of the destination mapped in IPv6 by using the M= AP > IPv6 rule. If I need to apply an ACL that matches a destination outside o= f > the map domain I can only do that by using MAP-T; > > - another example is how to apply an ACL that matches UDP or TCP packet= s > on the BNG. My understanding is that this cannot be achieved with MAP-E, = as > the IPv4 packet is encapsulated in IPv6. > > > > These are just a couple of examples about ACL, there are use cases with > operational implications, that can be simply addressed by MAP-T. > > > > Thanks > > Best regards, > > Roberta > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: softwires-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of GangChen > > Sent: venerd=EC 7 settembre 2012 8.05 > > To: softwires > > Subject: [Softwires] Is ACL really a point to drive MAP-T solution? > > > > Hello all, > > > > As I identified, there is no issue to apply ACL either on fix networks > > or mobile networks. Why most operators don't have issue, why there is > > the issue for special operator. What is the issue? > > > > MAP-T and MAP-E have same address format. And, we have a good decision > > to standard the MAP-E solution. > > > > Even ACL is needed, MAP-E is sufficient. There is no need to create > > another flavor > > > > Considering above, MAP-T is superfluous. > > I don't think we need spend much energy on that. > > If there is something I missed, please kindly identify it before > > submitting the MAP-T document. > > > > Many thanks > > > > Gang > > _______________________________________________ > > Softwires mailing list > > Softwires@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > > > > Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle > persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante > dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualo= ra > abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati d= i > darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua > distruzione, Grazie. > > > > This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain > privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, > copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not > the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments an= d > advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Softwires mailing list > > Softwires@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > --047d7b3a7ff8b8330704c94e95bf Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
hi zhen,
=A0
2012/9/9 Zhen C= ao <zehn.cao@gmail.com>
Hello Roberta,

For most operators, I haven't heard the issues existed. If those use cases are just designed for this solution, this does not convince
anybody including me, and we do not need to discuss a scenario which
is to justify a solution.
=A0
IMHO, ACL= visibility is one of the consequence/result/benefit rather than design goa= l of the MAP-T.=A0we have the RFCs for=A0translation -> translation for = IPv4/IPv6 -> stateless translation -> double translation, where we ca= n see a clear movitation of having the MAP-T. double translation is a natur= ally established use case=A0(and an indispensible part of the architecture)= of stateless translation and MAP-T is the application of MAP address/port = mapping algorithm for it.
debating on the=A0significance of MAP-T, even after the WG= has formally committed continueing the work on it, IMHO, is waste of time = of the WG. but if you would like to discuss about the significance, motivat= ion, and use cases of translation/double-translation, you are welcome to ma= il me offline. thanks!
=A0
- maoke
=A0

What's your unique network architecture compared with others, can you show us your concrete network architecture? What's your deployment
plan for MAP-T and where?

Thanks
Zhen

On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Maglione Roberta
<roberta.maglione@t= elecomitalia.it> wrote:
> Hello Gang,
> =A0 =A0 I do see some difference between MAP-E and MAP-T regarding the= application of ACL.
> Let's consider the following scenarios:
> - when a destination is outside of the MAP domain in case of MAP-E the= CE uses as IPv6 destination the IPv6 address of the MAP BR while for MAP-T= it uses the IPv4 address of the destination mapped in IPv6 by using the MA= P IPv6 rule. If I need to apply an ACL that matches a destination outside o= f the map domain I can only do that by using MAP-T;
> - another example is how to apply an ACL that matches UDP or TCP packe= ts on the BNG. My understanding is that this cannot be achieved with MAP-E,= as the IPv4 packet is encapsulated in IPv6.
>
> These are just a couple of examples about ACL, there are use cases wit= h operational implications, that can be simply addressed by MAP-T.
>
> Thanks
> Best regards,
> Roberta
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: softwires-bounces@= ietf.org [mailto:softwire= s-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of GangChen
> Sent: venerd=EC 7 settembre 2012 8.05
> To: softwires
> Subject: [Softwires] Is ACL really a point to drive MAP-T solution? >
> Hello all,
>
> As I identified, there is no issue to apply ACL either on fix networks=
> or mobile networks. Why most operators don't have issue, why there= is
> the issue for special operator. What is the issue?
>
> MAP-T and MAP-E have same address format. And, we have a good decision=
> to standard the MAP-E solution.
>
> Even ACL is needed, MAP-E is sufficient. There is no need to create > another flavor
>
> Considering above, MAP-T is superfluous.
> I don't think we need spend much energy on that.
> If there is something I missed, please kindly identify it before
> submitting the MAP-T document.
>
> Many thanks
>
> Gang
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> Softwires@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>
> Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente all= e persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante= dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualor= a abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati d= i darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distru= zione, Grazie.
>
> This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privil= eged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying= , printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the inten= ded recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise th= e sender by return e-mail, Thanks.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> Softwires@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

--047d7b3a7ff8b8330704c94e95bf-- From zehn.cao@gmail.com Sun Sep 9 19:12:09 2012 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 D572721F85E6 for ; Sun, 9 Sep 2012 19:12:09 -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 LO7wiXbkvjWP for ; Sun, 9 Sep 2012 19:12:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com (mail-ie0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 109A521F85A3 for ; Sun, 9 Sep 2012 19:12:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ieak13 with SMTP id k13so2347405iea.31 for ; Sun, 09 Sep 2012 19:12:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=s9mQUv0tsUj8jIBpsmXMU/DFKn9TooGOqg1nFe0KRfo=; b=TNDcG3DKFuiYvQmPfHEQpTkwS8TMt9k76fZxH3ASRIVWv8YAB7kRyrThdljtUEUl3N lfVPOAYX9ANs7l8yE/vyjm2SFCeMrKYLM/pPAQnjHwH2Pjds6qUN5ox18N826mhAulAg JdT0rd7dCQtpOJ/l4oHELzRv+z5QYg9P4wL4bMbsI2dXryN2NVM9LdKUPo29KTwk1ged YMNJPlvE6ql//+tIaJ1Du78FZsNDa9bP9j0mm2TIy70KHTKzOM9C+LA70Ve9pZIXjtCE BgTy9P4qzo1HEyzfkFEl8PvMpexeXd4NZIlMvx3cMTQbqjHbd6jFGIdmek+YlwA2i0eQ cflA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.194.130 with SMTP id hw2mr8086737igc.64.1347243128637; Sun, 09 Sep 2012 19:12:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.6.7 with HTTP; Sun, 9 Sep 2012 19:12:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <282BBE8A501E1F4DA9C775F964BB21FE5196FD4425@GRFMBX704BA020.griffon.local> References: <282BBE8A501E1F4DA9C775F964BB21FE519702F1A6@GRFMBX704BA020.griffon.local> <282BBE8A501E1F4DA9C775F964BB21FE5196FD4425@GRFMBX704BA020.griffon.local> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 10:12:08 +0800 Message-ID: From: Zhen Cao To: Maglione Roberta Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: softwires Subject: Re: [Softwires] Is ACL really a point to drive MAP-T solution? 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, 10 Sep 2012 02:12:09 -0000 Hello Roberta, Thanks for information. For the scenario you described, I have following questions and comments. a) Where are destination address based ACL needed? Those filtering can be accomplished via the configuration on the end point, not necessarily placed intermediately. I am not convinced why design ACL like this. b) The transport layer information can be got via one more step check into the packets, that's not a big problem for new devices. Thanks and regards, Zhen On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Maglione Roberta wrote: > Hello Zhen, > thanks for your comments. The use cases I described in my email are = just some examples of types of ACL=92s for IPv4 we have been using in our = network for many years. I don=92t want to speak for other operators, but t= hese are real application for ACL=92s in our current Broadband deployment. > I haven=92t seen in your reply any explanation about how these scenario= s could be implemented with other solutions without changing the network ar= chitecture. > In addition I=92d like to mention that ACL=92s are just one of the use ca= ses that could benefit from a MAP-T like solution, there are other example= s, I can describe them in more details, if you think it could be useful. > Thanks and best regards > Roberta > > > ________________________________________ > From: Zhen Cao [zehn.cao@gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2012 5:03 PM > To: Maglione Roberta > Cc: GangChen; softwires > Subject: Re: [Softwires] Is ACL really a point to drive MAP-T solution? > > Hello Roberta, > > For most operators, I haven't heard the issues existed. If those use > cases are just designed for this solution, this does not convince > anybody including me, and we do not need to discuss a scenario which > is to justify a solution. > > What's your unique network architecture compared with others, can you > show us your concrete network architecture? What's your deployment > plan for MAP-T and where? > > Thanks > Zhen > > On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Maglione Roberta > wrote: >> Hello Gang, >> I do see some difference between MAP-E and MAP-T regarding the appli= cation of ACL. >> Let's consider the following scenarios: >> - when a destination is outside of the MAP domain in case of MAP-E the C= E uses as IPv6 destination the IPv6 address of the MAP BR while for MAP-T i= t uses the IPv4 address of the destination mapped in IPv6 by using the MAP = IPv6 rule. If I need to apply an ACL that matches a destination outside of = the map domain I can only do that by using MAP-T; >> - another example is how to apply an ACL that matches UDP or TCP packets= on the BNG. My understanding is that this cannot be achieved with MAP-E, a= s the IPv4 packet is encapsulated in IPv6. >> >> These are just a couple of examples about ACL, there are use cases with = operational implications, that can be simply addressed by MAP-T. >> >> Thanks >> Best regards, >> Roberta >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: softwires-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] On = Behalf Of GangChen >> Sent: venerd=EC 7 settembre 2012 8.05 >> To: softwires >> Subject: [Softwires] Is ACL really a point to drive MAP-T solution? >> >> Hello all, >> >> As I identified, there is no issue to apply ACL either on fix networks >> or mobile networks. Why most operators don't have issue, why there is >> the issue for special operator. What is the issue? >> >> MAP-T and MAP-E have same address format. And, we have a good decision >> to standard the MAP-E solution. >> >> Even ACL is needed, MAP-E is sufficient. There is no need to create >> another flavor >> >> Considering above, MAP-T is superfluous. >> I don't think we need spend much energy on that. >> If there is something I missed, please kindly identify it before >> submitting the MAP-T document. >> >> Many thanks >> >> Gang >> _______________________________________________ >> Softwires mailing list >> Softwires@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >> >> Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle = persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante d= alla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora = abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di = darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzi= one, Grazie. >> >> This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileg= ed information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, = printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intende= d recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the = sender by return e-mail, Thanks. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Softwires mailing list >> Softwires@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires From wdec.ietf@gmail.com Mon Sep 10 06:54:54 2012 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 0699421F869F for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 06:54:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.861 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.861 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.737, 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 pBq-ltsIdaGd for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 06:54:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com (mail-wi0-f172.google.com [209.85.212.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1115021F8691 for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 06:54:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wibhi8 with SMTP id hi8so1703703wib.13 for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 06:54:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=SmkPf7uTD02ChWrxbIa59MFaTtBRjFQWXWr/KpaQ7Xg=; b=lLkDQLquorN4ZU7VR13fOzAkKWmCrfrze4aUAsE+GKGkp57XXRHixbfcy41VMjdj3I ubW7McNqapw41BEUONmvEOhLPTOWOPYm7r9qBvoPqChIT8WdWi0Rph9RXNxa+ajwrQYo 95TmTkzGMXegaI572JkXi7d7/IZGPuFY6mhl2UUDQF6uBKC0IKPM1xiVNmWrHnPnkAWU E4YTRUc4fPCG2VjLrSje+zSJA0RgYWwXsVCdqdksZugb5WV3Lizw7HPAFjUlo5Sz6iZN BqPP5RArhW+PlOQpi9yilN2PwbgW7/sxNjEPTxpFfx/YA11V1mROqJDhoJnqCyO4S5la TWPQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.205.101 with SMTP id i79mr8255918weo.209.1347285289247; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 06:54:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.42.230 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Sep 2012 06:54:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <282BBE8A501E1F4DA9C775F964BB21FE519702F1A6@GRFMBX704BA020.griffon.local> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 15:54:49 +0200 Message-ID: From: Wojciech Dec To: Zhen Cao Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6de011d13a5bc04c9594de6 Cc: softwires Subject: Re: [Softwires] Is ACL really a point to drive MAP-T solution? 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, 10 Sep 2012 13:54:54 -0000 --0016e6de011d13a5bc04c9594de6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Zhen, you perhaps may be missing out on the last 1+ years of discussions in this WG regarding the role/purpose of NAT464 technology and all relevant architectures, including the softwire Beijing interim with map-t use-cases, the WG adoption vote/status, discussion on xlat464, as well as 4rd-u (although the need for this technology variant remains questionable). While we can re-hash many of those, in the interest of moving forward it would be helpful if you revisited the archives to find the answers. Regards, W. Dec On 8 September 2012 17:03, Zhen Cao wrote: > Hello Roberta, > > For most operators, I haven't heard the issues existed. If those use > cases are just designed for this solution, this does not convince > anybody including me, and we do not need to discuss a scenario which > is to justify a solution. > > What's your unique network architecture compared with others, can you > show us your concrete network architecture? What's your deployment > plan for MAP-T and where? > > Thanks > Zhen > > On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Maglione Roberta > wrote: > > Hello Gang, > > I do see some difference between MAP-E and MAP-T regarding the > application of ACL. > > Let's consider the following scenarios: > > - when a destination is outside of the MAP domain in case of MAP-E the > CE uses as IPv6 destination the IPv6 address of the MAP BR while for MAP-= T > it uses the IPv4 address of the destination mapped in IPv6 by using the M= AP > IPv6 rule. If I need to apply an ACL that matches a destination outside o= f > the map domain I can only do that by using MAP-T; > > - another example is how to apply an ACL that matches UDP or TCP packet= s > on the BNG. My understanding is that this cannot be achieved with MAP-E, = as > the IPv4 packet is encapsulated in IPv6. > > > > These are just a couple of examples about ACL, there are use cases with > operational implications, that can be simply addressed by MAP-T. > > > > Thanks > > Best regards, > > Roberta > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: softwires-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of GangChen > > Sent: venerd=EC 7 settembre 2012 8.05 > > To: softwires > > Subject: [Softwires] Is ACL really a point to drive MAP-T solution? > > > > Hello all, > > > > As I identified, there is no issue to apply ACL either on fix networks > > or mobile networks. Why most operators don't have issue, why there is > > the issue for special operator. What is the issue? > > > > MAP-T and MAP-E have same address format. And, we have a good decision > > to standard the MAP-E solution. > > > > Even ACL is needed, MAP-E is sufficient. There is no need to create > > another flavor > > > > Considering above, MAP-T is superfluous. > > I don't think we need spend much energy on that. > > If there is something I missed, please kindly identify it before > > submitting the MAP-T document. > > > > Many thanks > > > > Gang > > _______________________________________________ > > Softwires mailing list > > Softwires@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > > > > Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle > persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante > dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualo= ra > abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati d= i > darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua > distruzione, Grazie. > > > > This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain > privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, > copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not > the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments an= d > advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Softwires mailing list > > Softwires@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > --0016e6de011d13a5bc04c9594de6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Zhen,

you perhaps may be missing out on the last 1+ years of discuss= ions in this WG regarding the role/purpose of NAT464 technology and all rel= evant architectures, including the softwire Beijing interim with map-t use-= cases, the WG adoption vote/status, discussion on xlat464, as well as 4rd-u= (although the need for this technology variant remains questionable).
While we can re-hash many of those, in the interest of moving forward it wo= uld be helpful if you revisited the archives to find the answers.

Re= gards,
W. Dec


On 8 September 2012 = 17:03, Zhen Cao <zehn.cao@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello Roberta,

For most operators, I haven't heard the issues existed. If those use cases are just designed for this solution, this does not convince
anybody including me, and we do not need to discuss a scenario which
is to justify a solution.

What's your unique network architecture compared with others, can you show us your concrete network architecture? What's your deployment
plan for MAP-T and where?

Thanks
Zhen

On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Maglione Roberta
<roberta.maglione@t= elecomitalia.it> wrote:
> Hello Gang,
> =A0 =A0 I do see some difference between MAP-E and MAP-T regarding the= application of ACL.
> Let's consider the following scenarios:
> - when a destination is outside of the MAP domain in case of MAP-E the= CE uses as IPv6 destination the IPv6 address of the MAP BR while for MAP-T= it uses the IPv4 address of the destination mapped in IPv6 by using the MA= P IPv6 rule. If I need to apply an ACL that matches a destination outside o= f the map domain I can only do that by using MAP-T;
> - another example is how to apply an ACL that matches UDP or TCP packe= ts on the BNG. My understanding is that this cannot be achieved with MAP-E,= as the IPv4 packet is encapsulated in IPv6.
>
> These are just a couple of examples about ACL, there are use cases wit= h operational implications, that can be simply addressed by MAP-T.
>
> Thanks
> Best regards,
> Roberta
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: softwires-bounces@= ietf.org [mailto:softwire= s-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of GangChen
> Sent: venerd=EC 7 settembre 2012 8.05
> To: softwires
> Subject: [Softwires] Is ACL really a point to drive MAP-T solution? >
> Hello all,
>
> As I identified, there is no issue to apply ACL either on fix networks=
> or mobile networks. Why most operators don't have issue, why there= is
> the issue for special operator. What is the issue?
>
> MAP-T and MAP-E have same address format. And, we have a good decision=
> to standard the MAP-E solution.
>
> Even ACL is needed, MAP-E is sufficient. There is no need to create > another flavor
>
> Considering above, MAP-T is superfluous.
> I don't think we need spend much energy on that.
> If there is something I missed, please kindly identify it before
> submitting the MAP-T document.
>
> Many thanks
>
> Gang
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> Softwires@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>
> Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente all= e persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante= dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualor= a abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati d= i darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distru= zione, Grazie.
>
> This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privil= eged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying= , printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the inten= ded recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise th= e sender by return e-mail, Thanks.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> Softwires@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

--0016e6de011d13a5bc04c9594de6-- From zehn.cao@gmail.com Tue Sep 11 01:01:18 2012 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 5F96B21F879A for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 01:01:18 -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 6GibyxvMb3IW for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 01:01:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 797F721F8798 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 01:01:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iabz21 with SMTP id z21so213400iab.31 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 01:01:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=DY1mjle+D8ez9hIY0XmlXidFCgqKrIlS3Rdy/mKSRTk=; b=nsw3+cQ8LWIPiF6/TtUXMYYizCxNSS9cFs8/HOgQL/2ZzdKL7WELqpXS7SltR9ibAM inNpTAeIO93wBMqn7HSmRu3b+z1G6aLk0lAMkslpg/xsrgW3PlaX4ima60gAKq5pTwH3 CoDNuxd/14bjdtAumvctGg/855lOWog/3ktLpctbbrk2IwqmxTrDqPAwPddbLGWr5D4e Rq/WUZaqcJBJJOyO0yQAOua/iQlkZLHBf5N0WSL/SnOqbIuM3YTIVGs4RGrsUt3lz7nA OnPn+t6OD2u24wYFX92miBZHkOgWlF7ANFoo7PfWLsHDpV3PuPjs3GAjMnFrf5rHU8sH lBPw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.194.130 with SMTP id hw2mr14679043igc.64.1347350476993; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 01:01:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.6.7 with HTTP; Tue, 11 Sep 2012 01:01:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <282BBE8A501E1F4DA9C775F964BB21FE519702F1A6@GRFMBX704BA020.griffon.local> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 16:01:16 +0800 Message-ID: From: Zhen Cao To: Wojciech Dec Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: softwires Subject: Re: [Softwires] Is ACL really a point to drive MAP-T solution? 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, 11 Sep 2012 08:01:18 -0000 Woj, I did attend the softwire Beijing interim meeting. What I heard then were two conflicting arguments a) the ACL should be accomplished via IPv6 plane. b) full IPv4 address should be encoded in the IPv6 address, so that data filtering could be achieved. Although these have been discussed on the mailing list for long, I only witness one operator stating this is an issue since then. Best regards, Zhen On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Wojciech Dec wrote: > Zhen, > > you perhaps may be missing out on the last 1+ years of discussions in thi= s > WG regarding the role/purpose of NAT464 technology and all relevant > architectures, including the softwire Beijing interim with map-t use-case= s, > the WG adoption vote/status, discussion on xlat464, as well as 4rd-u > (although the need for this technology variant remains questionable). > While we can re-hash many of those, in the interest of moving forward it > would be helpful if you revisited the archives to find the answers. > > Regards, > W. Dec > > > > On 8 September 2012 17:03, Zhen Cao wrote: >> >> Hello Roberta, >> >> For most operators, I haven't heard the issues existed. If those use >> cases are just designed for this solution, this does not convince >> anybody including me, and we do not need to discuss a scenario which >> is to justify a solution. >> >> What's your unique network architecture compared with others, can you >> show us your concrete network architecture? What's your deployment >> plan for MAP-T and where? >> >> Thanks >> Zhen >> >> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Maglione Roberta >> wrote: >> > Hello Gang, >> > I do see some difference between MAP-E and MAP-T regarding the >> > application of ACL. >> > Let's consider the following scenarios: >> > - when a destination is outside of the MAP domain in case of MAP-E the >> > CE uses as IPv6 destination the IPv6 address of the MAP BR while for M= AP-T >> > it uses the IPv4 address of the destination mapped in IPv6 by using th= e MAP >> > IPv6 rule. If I need to apply an ACL that matches a destination outsid= e of >> > the map domain I can only do that by using MAP-T; >> > - another example is how to apply an ACL that matches UDP or TCP packe= ts >> > on the BNG. My understanding is that this cannot be achieved with MAP-= E, as >> > the IPv4 packet is encapsulated in IPv6. >> > >> > These are just a couple of examples about ACL, there are use cases wit= h >> > operational implications, that can be simply addressed by MAP-T. >> > >> > Thanks >> > Best regards, >> > Roberta >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: softwires-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] O= n >> > Behalf Of GangChen >> > Sent: venerd=EC 7 settembre 2012 8.05 >> > To: softwires >> > Subject: [Softwires] Is ACL really a point to drive MAP-T solution? >> > >> > Hello all, >> > >> > As I identified, there is no issue to apply ACL either on fix networks >> > or mobile networks. Why most operators don't have issue, why there is >> > the issue for special operator. What is the issue? >> > >> > MAP-T and MAP-E have same address format. And, we have a good decision >> > to standard the MAP-E solution. >> > >> > Even ACL is needed, MAP-E is sufficient. There is no need to create >> > another flavor >> > >> > Considering above, MAP-T is superfluous. >> > I don't think we need spend much energy on that. >> > If there is something I missed, please kindly identify it before >> > submitting the MAP-T document. >> > >> > Many thanks >> > >> > Gang >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Softwires mailing list >> > Softwires@ietf.org >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >> > >> > Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente all= e >> > persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione deriva= nte >> > dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qu= alora >> > abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregat= i di >> > darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua >> > distruzione, Grazie. >> > >> > This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain >> > privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Disseminati= on, >> > copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are n= ot the >> > intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and >> > advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks. >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Softwires mailing list >> > Softwires@ietf.org >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >> _______________________________________________ >> Softwires mailing list >> Softwires@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > > From suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com Wed Sep 12 15:07:53 2012 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 5C27321F859C for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:07:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 ifxpo2tce4Cz for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:07:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09F1521F8566 for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:07:41 -0700 (PDT) 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 q8CMBqgu032167 for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:11:53 -0500 Received: from [164.48.125.51] (147.117.20.214) by smtps-am.internal.ericsson.com (147.117.20.181) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.264.1; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:07:34 -0400 Message-ID: <5051079E.7060706@ericsson.com> Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 18:07:26 -0400 From: Suresh Krishnan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120827 Thunderbird/15.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Softwires WG X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Softwires] Way forward with MAP-T and 4rd 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, 12 Sep 2012 22:07:53 -0000 Hi all, One of the followup questions we had after choosing the standards track solution was to see what the wg wanted to do with the other two solutions (MAP-T and 4rd). The sense of the room was that the wg was in favor of not abandoning them. We have not verified this formally in the ML and we have not worked out the exact logistics of how we will go about pursuing the other solutions. The chairs will get this process started by the end of this week with a set of questions to the wg. Thanks Suresh & Yong From sarikaya2012@gmail.com Thu Sep 13 11:31:11 2012 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 BD17521F8599 for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 11:31:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.227 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.227 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.372, 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 8pLhjVPYUZQF for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 11:31:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3407D21F8587 for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 11:31:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iabz21 with SMTP id z21so2682013iab.31 for ; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 11:31:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=KY/G3vFz6wjqwjPcJo5o68PJG+gwoRcWR7OK/aD/Psk=; b=ZjxIICnqhqsWi4U+5kQZc4L+h/xonaJiVuWpB0lfnPObdtqR7MrO2LZOqTbK3FShtg QphvFOJwu3vxLlmY0D+E/rM+9oat+VMvwIXR5cHVE/UDrApBO4S067lrZ5DpejnVS8QL C3YPAF3DDYypE2XNgM5FQC3z7AzSuXEQiBllp0nwMVQFpvvfJ+nQ/GwSnLhC87+kE1zp yB5w4bqrL0jLuaZTjm7NxQiCAb58RM2BTLcAuGT0wf2Q+uz4ahV96fkIh7X2wk4eN3Dw Vqf6PJYE8ZJnzz2QOjPf8Sb4oUFLncS48d35oJODKxGldr3C2D7pCkw9IA6pzUbNJYKR GeJw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.47.129 with SMTP id d1mr25906751ign.45.1347561070633; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 11:31:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.55.70 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 11:31:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 13:31:10 -0500 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: Softwires-wg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: Re: [Softwires] Comments on draft-ietf-softwire-map-02.txt X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 18:31:11 -0000 Hi Woj, I have some comments on this draft. Regarding Section 5, I am curious why we need the mapping, i.e. Section 5 if we are doing MAP-E? i.e. NAT44'ed IPv4 packet is encapsulated in IPv6 using RFC 2473. RFC2473 defines quite in detail in Section 5 on Tunnel IPv6 Header almost everything needed. More specific comments: what is the relationship of this draft with the original MAP-E draft, draft-mdt-softwire-map-encapsulation-00? That draft described in detail how RFC 2473 would be used which is missing in draft-ietf-softwire-map-02. OTOH draft-ietf-softwire-map-02 does not even reference draft-mdt-softwire-map-encapsulation-00, why? Regards, Behcet On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 3:10 AM, wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the Softwires Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Mapping of Address and Port with Encapsulation (MAP) > Author(s) : Ole Troan > Wojciech Dec > Xing Li > Congxiao Bao > Satoru Matsushima > Tetsuya Murakami > Filename : draft-ietf-softwire-map-02.txt > Pages : 29 > Date : 2012-09-05 > > Abstract: > This document describes a mechanism for transporting IPv4 packets > across an IPv6 network, and a generic mechanism for mapping between > IPv6 addresses and IPv4 addresses and transport layer ports. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-02 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-softwire-map-02 > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires From ichiroumakino@gmail.com Fri Sep 14 00:36:21 2012 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 3F0B921F8607 for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 00:36:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.156 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.156 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.817, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, 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 cicDhgUhDfHB for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 00:36:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ee0-f44.google.com (mail-ee0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 703DF21F851B for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 00:36:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eekb45 with SMTP id b45so2362944eek.31 for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 00:36:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=ygEgP6YFj4m27zJyipKW4Bj197eB1KJGJU1lIBMEmLc=; b=rte/7RmV2npgcoqcVVsrpswtE4vIrMn6sjpnyrHcXVwYHcM4TgsXpjx7PTniQuFd6j klxjAYp6UUWv2DJdSiNj2Dpe7Uz3msXednx3NBR/ZHm1cDIo0yPVCUbBYSKu9gp3oQGk 4g9lJjNGtQcHlFW0hPNVXjdJ0Pe7BvAhFCGEeQNg8KIAlWbH26+4XPLQFkBX4AW7FdBp bCRMlVbdpqSZckG2dTO8KPLQ0H0SuChbWaAQBdVWtzfJ82TkvfIWad6auFhYXL62zev9 tws87f9yNwJuWC7W2jbI10xceaeKebLZMepGD8tUwmLU4NWFX5eXEt1bLO1FXwyd794Q zDmg== Received: by 10.14.221.197 with SMTP id r45mr2201181eep.41.1347608179533; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 00:36:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-lys01-vla250-10-147-112-145.cisco.com (64-103-25-233.cisco.com. [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z3sm1838447eel.15.2012.09.14.00.36.17 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 14 Sep 2012 00:36:18 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Ole Troan Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_75068600-7B13-4618-9843-A5067BA80077"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ole_Tr=F8an?= In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 09:36:19 +0200 Message-Id: <01874DCB-11A0-42E2-91BD-FF16B03985AF@employees.org> References: To: sarikaya@ieee.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: Softwires-wg Subject: Re: [Softwires] Comments on draft-ietf-softwire-map-02.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: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 07:36:21 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_75068600-7B13-4618-9843-A5067BA80077 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Bechet, > I have some comments on this draft. >=20 > Regarding Section 5, I am curious why we need the mapping, i.e. > Section 5 if we are doing MAP-E? i.e. NAT44'ed IPv4 packet is > encapsulated in IPv6 using RFC 2473. RFC2473 defines quite in detail > in Section 5 on Tunnel IPv6 Header almost everything needed. MAP-E does everything MAP does. support of mesh mode, stateless BRs... without mapping how would that be achieved? > More specific comments: what is the relationship of this draft with > the original MAP-E draft, draft-mdt-softwire-map-encapsulation-00? > That draft described in detail how RFC 2473 would be used which is > missing in draft-ietf-softwire-map-02. OTOH draft-ietf-softwire-map-02 > does not even reference draft-mdt-softwire-map-encapsulation-00, why? draft-ietf-softwire-map has evolved from = draft-mdt-softwire-map-encapsulation and is meant to incorporate all the significant parts of it. something may have = fallen out in editing, if so please propose text. cheers, Ole --Apple-Mail=_75068600-7B13-4618-9843-A5067BA80077 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=smime.p7s Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name=smime.p7s Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAqCAMIACAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMIAGCSqGSIb3DQEHAQAAoIIMNjCCBUAw ggQooAMCAQICEGaZIlj/wiu8ZryksFIoEYswDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAwgd0xCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVT MRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1c3QgTmV0d29y azE7MDkGA1UECxMyVGVybXMgb2YgdXNlIGF0IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9ycGEg KGMpMDkxHjAcBgNVBAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlkYXRlZDE3MDUGA1UEAxMuVmVyaVNpZ24g Q2xhc3MgMSBJbmRpdmlkdWFsIFN1YnNjcmliZXIgQ0EgLSBHMzAeFw0xMjA4MDgwMDAwMDBaFw0x MjEwMDcyMzU5NTlaMIIBAzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlT aWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxRjBEBgNVBAsTPXd3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcmVwb3NpdG9yeS9S UEEgSW5jb3JwLiBieSBSZWYuLExJQUIuTFREKGMpOTgxHjAcBgNVBAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZh bGlkYXRlZDEmMCQGA1UECxMdRGlnaXRhbCBJRCBDbGFzcyAxIC0gTmV0c2NhcGUxEjAQBgNVBAMU CU9sZSBUcvhhbjEjMCEGCSqGSIb3DQEJARYUb3Ryb2FuQGVtcGxveWVlcy5vcmcwggEiMA0GCSqG SIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQC03pLE1GnPvefnf0B0ZI3TpY/FJatqxd6P2bERWXj0bVj6 SKO/HWyK6Bai3b16kDZew5FDUu6+DsEhh9+bxsiCCstTE+121pcEKgU8F4tazGy05x1Z60Xo1Lkl ki/3OtYCie+VfmQkjmH+y9UuJWPgZcnzTpIC8ztdAzvvrrD0/oIWIwkpSvS4VHE0It1xRGDs3pb2 IEgCEOUEg5wNvxMHbLwa15EZYK4p4LypgF+ObeR+JklVes2pObQCLuyGa8TXYJsIIpm5D3NthBEw UvdS+/I3EzSeVTDw0dwfzW82XQls1CwKNI/IUS0huB5ZBaThB8LbEaThwU44/osFcyTNAgMBAAGj gdIwgc8wCQYDVR0TBAIwADBEBgNVHSAEPTA7MDkGC2CGSAGG+EUBBxcBMCowKAYIKwYBBQUHAgEW HGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9ycGEwCwYDVR0PBAQDAgWgMB0GA1UdJQQWMBQGCCsG AQUFBwMEBggrBgEFBQcDAjBQBgNVHR8ESTBHMEWgQ6BBhj9odHRwOi8vaW5kYzFkaWdpdGFsaWQt ZzMtY3JsLnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9JbmRDMURpZ2l0YWxJRC1HMy5jcmwwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQAD ggEBAIJIENsyJjrFsF3StCcQWSFBGL6ddUZPfF0vkXmDJujOFnIcv0V9UBiWKkBGxI/J/1faLOWz LJYk25GZv83tPYrXKCuUL0vEtVswc+qLw0EeVbKlr6bILZvcj7P4aJePWYMoJCuWnC60HnEndAOm T1/d7xCRCcBjFmZDyM0FSO17VTjP6+Kxg3IGujWu+/sB0OD8CkipsjJikeIxIY/ujK8waMg2ePgz 4UQjTG1K2r5PfWeXHcG09Gcu5qBN9q0YKNfWMYwSIEfs61J/0cbrh399X+1+9uc3ygBs2F6NR0kM 0cDe/DfyWPwvnwXlzEXuC5xRMXNrWQ6cWQd0mryIZ5owggbuMIIF1qADAgECAhBxFWYFSuSRIU3p vET5rNPcMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMIHKMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24s IEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxOjA4BgNVBAsTMShjKSAxOTk5 IFZlcmlTaWduLCBJbmMuIC0gRm9yIGF1dGhvcml6ZWQgdXNlIG9ubHkxRTBDBgNVBAMTPFZlcmlT aWduIENsYXNzIDEgUHVibGljIFByaW1hcnkgQ2VydGlmaWNhdGlvbiBBdXRob3JpdHkgLSBHMzAe Fw0wOTA1MDEwMDAwMDBaFw0xOTA0MzAyMzU5NTlaMIHdMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEXMBUGA1UEChMO VmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxOzA5BgNVBAsT MlRlcm1zIG9mIHVzZSBhdCBodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcnBhIChjKTA5MR4wHAYD VQQLExVQZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0ZWQxNzA1BgNVBAMTLlZlcmlTaWduIENsYXNzIDEgSW5k aXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3JpYmVyIENBIC0gRzMwggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIB AQDtxEffKigdfAZru9chMslsE4/psY1BTjT32gvjavpliCALERPpm+BJTotv1QHQXw1HkYpaTHQ+ P8aRCbtMNJ6NbqGCUWL3aXZYlgevnhQYB09avZ/SMbJUGXNGahlCEewScyGN9dwwzeXZVgoxxTZt KRSXvS3aiUcZiNhLBD3rtjxnHnQAEw3QhtqTZ/gzA64aPGtpePbALI7hgz93+Zn//p9SWsK0hwrY bKlHwVQpZUM+SsCWH8Gt93evbLEEXr7BtpQtl5AtJ9K7HumDaoT2xLKuIwZlJqUnWCsHIrRvpmJI Gnfy1VAnminTlvso9bokdmLjjFnr+27VQsS+Qcf1AgMBAAGjggK5MIICtTA0BggrBgEFBQcBAQQo MCYwJAYIKwYBBQUHMAGGGGh0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbTASBgNVHRMBAf8ECDAGAQH/ AgEAMHAGA1UdIARpMGcwZQYLYIZIAYb4RQEHFwEwVjAoBggrBgEFBQcCARYcaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cu dmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL2NwczAqBggrBgEFBQcCAjAeGhxodHRwczovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20v cnBhMDQGA1UdHwQtMCswKaAnoCWGI2h0dHA6Ly9jcmwudmVyaXNpZ24uY29tL3BjYTEtZzMuY3Js MA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIBBjBuBggrBgEFBQcBDARiMGChXqBcMFowWDBWFglpbWFnZS9naWYwITAf MAcGBSsOAwIaBBRLa7kolgYMu9BSOJsprEsHiyEFGDAmFiRodHRwOi8vbG9nby52ZXJpc2lnbi5j b20vdnNsb2dvMS5naWYwLgYDVR0RBCcwJaQjMCExHzAdBgNVBAMTFlByaXZhdGVMYWJlbDQtMjA0 OC0xMTgwHQYDVR0OBBYEFHlHYQhB/TgEokvntcz1Q/ZJKxH4MIHxBgNVHSMEgekwgeahgdCkgc0w gcoxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVTMRcwFQYDVQQKEw5WZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNp Z24gVHJ1c3QgTmV0d29yazE6MDgGA1UECxMxKGMpIDE5OTkgVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4gLSBGb3Ig YXV0aG9yaXplZCB1c2Ugb25seTFFMEMGA1UEAxM8VmVyaVNpZ24gQ2xhc3MgMSBQdWJsaWMgUHJp bWFyeSBDZXJ0aWZpY2F0aW9uIEF1dGhvcml0eSAtIEczghEAi1t1VoRUhQsAz684SM6xpDANBgkq hkiG9w0BAQUFAAOCAQEAOU3PQZmBtakFtVI46TmEiWzkNKha59hsCUwkGrpZpIc7cyHxk4HPv2hj Wmf+NYUrocNdo0rCOhndMNbMTe/x0oGXylRaQ783i3qOGY0PQ6iM8q9gsxWKs5WcPOCesyeYpDVy F+X8Kl2H04oNwtFFKvjA9KwqkzrVrhJwCOv7O+J37OgrZDV2zbra4NHLFNZxWJu+1T59ttnoJMUk ZkxdkR92sxc+fw3GIYkvsze4of9csm1J3mVSQvsOiNLtSh2/S+P4zHL6SA5ljknI1viZmDu3lD4x cQaH+mxZUy7X3yvtX2MArBXtA7hVFozGaAPnIqhzC7G8oNpSWN0KDn/BgjGCBIswggSHAgEBMIHy MIHdMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNVBAsTFlZlcmlT aWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxOzA5BgNVBAsTMlRlcm1zIG9mIHVzZSBhdCBodHRwczovL3d3dy52 ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcnBhIChjKTA5MR4wHAYDVQQLExVQZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxpZGF0ZWQxNzA1 BgNVBAMTLlZlcmlTaWduIENsYXNzIDEgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3JpYmVyIENBIC0gRzMCEGaZ Ilj/wiu8ZryksFIoEYswCQYFKw4DAhoFAKCCAm0wGAYJKoZIhvcNAQkDMQsGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAc BgkqhkiG9w0BCQUxDxcNMTIwOTE0MDczNjIwWjAjBgkqhkiG9w0BCQQxFgQUCDgU2zhvDlVt1YtJ DLSuUcy3U8MwggEDBgkrBgEEAYI3EAQxgfUwgfIwgd0xCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVTMRcwFQYDVQQKEw5W ZXJpU2lnbiwgSW5jLjEfMB0GA1UECxMWVmVyaVNpZ24gVHJ1c3QgTmV0d29yazE7MDkGA1UECxMy VGVybXMgb2YgdXNlIGF0IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LnZlcmlzaWduLmNvbS9ycGEgKGMpMDkxHjAcBgNV BAsTFVBlcnNvbmEgTm90IFZhbGlkYXRlZDE3MDUGA1UEAxMuVmVyaVNpZ24gQ2xhc3MgMSBJbmRp dmlkdWFsIFN1YnNjcmliZXIgQ0EgLSBHMwIQZpkiWP/CK7xmvKSwUigRizCCAQUGCyqGSIb3DQEJ EAILMYH1oIHyMIHdMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEXMBUGA1UEChMOVmVyaVNpZ24sIEluYy4xHzAdBgNV BAsTFlZlcmlTaWduIFRydXN0IE5ldHdvcmsxOzA5BgNVBAsTMlRlcm1zIG9mIHVzZSBhdCBodHRw czovL3d3dy52ZXJpc2lnbi5jb20vcnBhIChjKTA5MR4wHAYDVQQLExVQZXJzb25hIE5vdCBWYWxp ZGF0ZWQxNzA1BgNVBAMTLlZlcmlTaWduIENsYXNzIDEgSW5kaXZpZHVhbCBTdWJzY3JpYmVyIENB IC0gRzMCEGaZIlj/wiu8ZryksFIoEYswDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQAEggEAlZaK/j8B0rMIK/cxtxLL 8T79/4IzVkorFI0JNBl+VD0N+25ZQFQWgShV4i5JOADfEgrd9V7xqZikGyDUfo/s+9SlfuweDmib f/o4XZ1auHJKH5rihXt8xBARUH3Oar9a0rU0wtxQYdRQHmVS31CuhNA2M6T+CdQe02STxOQqGFmz DnzB4pjcDv4a0p9VBgiVu3CyRs+uQpfP+n/ljMic6hyV4VSb7VGwTZy/DkoiNeZLJw50+Zpm2y8b 6Gt9HTOuUphr1QhyyFYTZ3biTOlzRVe7DfVdtwliRvJhbRHtdPgxF9EdU/WWb45QwYM3NkhgpPXx ghOXJTvzj10ezKSptwAAAAAAAA== --Apple-Mail=_75068600-7B13-4618-9843-A5067BA80077-- From sarikaya2012@gmail.com Fri Sep 14 08:49:05 2012 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 038ED21F84FC for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 08:49:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.201 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.098, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 iIN5xo1nZ4VX for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 08:49:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63D5F21F84F8 for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 08:49:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iabz21 with SMTP id z21so3517939iab.31 for ; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 08:49:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HDKKFdXGUVmIR4gdUJt9EudHtvkIAPCK14UrT+YDkX0=; b=b6Se5iJO4UCRpndh2BE1XxRu8obwgkSm0d6agYL6DPchd3NVuMJdqHDiHDLV29mPoZ I/Zh9fF/Sn4YnlWDjbgh/vzyLd4fksW5iai2kxyQOUei+iDrZpHxKI78Irx6ZY2hsowN H0SiRnWuTCl20+UJIp7AEMySRG9SPPedOgxjVycaQnZV4Ut90FqzOt2+22QGH0QYkgOx Zg7Sld6nTSLseuuhgLj/A1Ya/3HE6GAjTs0wGB9LcG6PxBfu544fsPUJrLyOc/sDnItB 1JR0pnYVpz2QDwB5NQaocCYvOFhrIFO72HMvfJaV3Vi0zHVOtrX3OEtDMVsU1AFHJG9A V59g== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.160.233 with SMTP id xn9mr29160059igb.37.1347637743828; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 08:49:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.55.70 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 08:49:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <01874DCB-11A0-42E2-91BD-FF16B03985AF@employees.org> References: <01874DCB-11A0-42E2-91BD-FF16B03985AF@employees.org> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 10:49:03 -0500 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ole_Tr=F8an?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Softwires-wg Subject: Re: [Softwires] Comments on draft-ietf-softwire-map-02.txt X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:49:05 -0000 Ole, Thanks for your quick reply. Please see inline. On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 2:36 AM, Ole Tr=F8an wrote: > Bechet, > >> I have some comments on this draft. >> >> Regarding Section 5, I am curious why we need the mapping, i.e. >> Section 5 if we are doing MAP-E? i.e. NAT44'ed IPv4 packet is >> encapsulated in IPv6 using RFC 2473. RFC2473 defines quite in detail >> in Section 5 on Tunnel IPv6 Header almost everything needed. > > MAP-E does everything MAP does. support of mesh mode, stateless BRs... > without mapping how would that be achieved? > Well, this is very well answered in draft-mdt-softwire-map-encapsulation-00 Section 8.2 which says that all CEs do not look up the mapping rules upon receiving an IPv4 packet from its LAN side and then CE must encapsulate the IPv4 packet with IPv6 whose destination must be a given BR. referring to the Hub & Spoke model. Do we have a similar statement in draft-ietf-softwire-map-02? I think we should. >> More specific comments: what is the relationship of this draft with >> the original MAP-E draft, draft-mdt-softwire-map-encapsulation-00? >> That draft described in detail how RFC 2473 would be used which is >> missing in draft-ietf-softwire-map-02. OTOH draft-ietf-softwire-map-02 >> does not even reference draft-mdt-softwire-map-encapsulation-00, why? > > draft-ietf-softwire-map has evolved from draft-mdt-softwire-map-encapsula= tion and is meant > to incorporate all the significant parts of it. something may have fallen= out in editing, > if so please propose text. draft-mdt-softwire-map-encapsulation gives details of many things including encapsulation and fragmentation referring to specific section of RFC 2473. I think we should carry these important details to the new and normative draft? One more issue: Regarding Section 7.2 which states that BR MUST use this anycast IPv6 address as the source address in packets relayed to CEs. It seems like this has been carried over from 6rd. I have concerns on this MUST. I think that CE has to maintain multiple tunnel interfaces with BRs if there are more than one BR, right? How would this be possible if CE does not know the unicast address of BR? Also, at times, MAP-E could be stateful. This is explained in Section 7 of draft-mdt-softwire-map-encapsulation which you do not not have. How could CE identify the specific BR in this case? I suggest changing MUST to MAY or even removing that sentence. Regards, Behcet From ecordeiro@nic.br Mon Sep 17 11:46:04 2012 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 BD33E21F8610 for ; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 11:46:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.74 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.74 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74] 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 6zMF9Ek-Fddv for ; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 11:46:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.nic.br (mail.cgi.br [IPv6:2001:12ff:0:4::5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AE7621F852C for ; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 11:46:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail.nic.br (Postfix, from userid 33) id 3F43E20805C1; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 15:46:00 -0300 (BRT) Received: from 200-185-250-174.user.ajato.com.br (200-185-250-174.user.ajato.com.br [200.185.250.174]) by mail.nic.br (Horde Framework) with HTTP; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 15:46:00 -0300 Message-ID: <20120917154600.13201ablgpxj2lew@mail.nic.br> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 15:46:00 -0300 From: ecordeiro@nic.br To: softwires@ietf.org References: <5051079E.7060706@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <5051079E.7060706@ericsson.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.3.7) Subject: Re: [Softwires] Way forward with MAP-T and 4rd 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, 17 Sep 2012 18:46:04 -0000 Hello Suresh and all, Regardind MAP-T we, at NIC.br, made some tests to verify the user =20 experience on a network using MAP-T. We published a draft with the results =20 (http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-cordeiro-softwire-experience-mapt-00.txt). Any comments are welcome. Best Regards, Edwin Cordeiro NIC.br Quoting "Suresh Krishnan" : > Hi all, > One of the followup questions we had after choosing the standards > track solution was to see what the wg wanted to do with the other two > solutions (MAP-T and 4rd). The sense of the room was that the wg was in > favor of not abandoning them. We have not verified this formally in the > ML and we have not worked out the exact logistics of how we will go > about pursuing the other solutions. The chairs will get this process > started by the end of this week with a set of questions to the wg. > > Thanks > Suresh & Yong > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > From cb.list6@gmail.com Mon Sep 17 12:05:57 2012 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 3D6C421E8037 for ; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 12:05:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, 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 M8d0eNM9ddvg for ; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 12:05:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49FF721E8040 for ; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 12:05:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by lbky2 with SMTP id y2so4790433lbk.31 for ; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 12:05:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=G9RUZvWe5kYFk3tIRaZkZuA/C7FHbc8r0diJFy0gZSU=; b=sztbJR7aBqkpcKnSEh8+VN3Qq2mtx2khf3uojgoR5nzI4YBn9r5W+07pMgZCtxWiSN 1OB922FlUcFihA9Eo+5sLdxCH3v7U2DR0ojo/58CBf3XkoZH8N0BXO5+HbnXILKOp9Ty ZtAphuddnyelyFNf1mrcy8eUT1t+DVm94QgiFOxCZSiVtixSTZeeo2CWDN4WZLniiU7l fz/p0o2KeDKTeOnZm8YCSKoF9RI3Mz9XFRPXoKmrbLhAtm6gkAnZfI7o/j8dvCRRlyGF MRYmW0la04wFV/s8MXKlhdxqCLjK16BHL2Jo9bURbAsY2U8oVk7nm8v7+LeBsCVoIc/u H/gQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.104.202 with SMTP id gg10mr10639514lab.56.1347908747258; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 12:05:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.49.66 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 12:05:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20120917154600.13201ablgpxj2lew@mail.nic.br> References: <5051079E.7060706@ericsson.com> <20120917154600.13201ablgpxj2lew@mail.nic.br> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 12:05:47 -0700 Message-ID: From: Cameron Byrne To: ecordeiro@nic.br Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: softwires@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Softwires] Way forward with MAP-T and 4rd 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, 17 Sep 2012 19:05:57 -0000 On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:46 AM, wrote: > Hello Suresh and all, > > Regardind MAP-T we, at NIC.br, made some tests to verify the user experience > on a network using MAP-T. > > We published a draft with the results > (http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-cordeiro-softwire-experience-mapt-00.txt). > > Any comments are welcome. > Cool. Looks a little HTTP heavy. It would be interesting to see broader variety of applications tested, especially since FTP failed... seems like many applications that requires ALGs may fail like XMPP, SIP, PPTP, IPsec ESP, RTSP, ICE/STUN/WebRTC .... Skype would also be an interesting test case since that is frequently seen as an IPv6 spoiler, but i assume it would work. From cb.list6@gmail.com Mon Sep 17 12:14:52 2012 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 58BB321F867C for ; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 12:14:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.316 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.316 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.283, 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 CCym3CCwhbQN for ; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 12:14:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A85021F867B for ; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 12:14:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by lahm15 with SMTP id m15so4733973lah.31 for ; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 12:14:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=IIyITW3SJot4zYA2UzfOSYy29RZwZVGbKubdTCUoPhc=; b=xf2uZIjm5Enyy18Oh6mcRBWf1b7RCyY81xkHPgkNGR/hh+1WSXkt7AM7Wd7pgogIST OE+pXK8cxESLgzoJqzrFRf1yuMoqbpCBhwpc1NeuJj0yVd4FuUziqe7O6eHSNqqLrB7/ R/4PafeLYviornYqLplj/ZTGaRQveenCqjNL/bgILh+8u2R2OMkJ9je4R3aRaPv7ewZs BkQO1gdTT5HOLSTB7epeYWXzv1l++IUAs0SKI6c+WMRd1mHv0vGfog16sTjQehY2ggL4 1O+LY+6mcI5mz3XocOXvHieTETN40UXSZ8QfpXm4yT9TdZDuWZIjUAzpBT20g6UvuBsn ENIg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.42.34 with SMTP id k2mr4195513lbl.11.1347909290151; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 12:14:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.49.66 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 12:14:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <5051079E.7060706@ericsson.com> <20120917154600.13201ablgpxj2lew@mail.nic.br> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 12:14:50 -0700 Message-ID: From: Cameron Byrne To: ecordeiro@nic.br Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: softwires@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Softwires] Way forward with MAP-T and 4rd 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, 17 Sep 2012 19:14:52 -0000 On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:46 AM, wrote: >> Hello Suresh and all, >> >> Regardind MAP-T we, at NIC.br, made some tests to verify the user experience >> on a network using MAP-T. >> >> We published a draft with the results >> (http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-cordeiro-softwire-experience-mapt-00.txt). >> >> Any comments are welcome. >> > > Cool. > > Looks a little HTTP heavy. > > It would be interesting to see broader variety of applications tested, > especially since FTP failed... seems like many applications that > requires ALGs may fail like XMPP, SIP, PPTP, IPsec ESP, RTSP, > ICE/STUN/WebRTC .... Skype would also be an interesting test case > since that is frequently seen as an IPv6 spoiler, but i assume it > would work. Ooops.. Looks like you did test Skype and XMPP. Thanks! From mohamed.boucadair@orange.com Tue Sep 18 01:10:02 2012 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 03BF121F84F3 for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 01:10:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.177 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.177 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.071, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, 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 CRJ0ZDDq84-z for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 01:10:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias92.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34BEE21F847F for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 01:10:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.4]) by omfedm11.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 3C53E3B436C; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:10:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from puexch91.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.48]) by omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 18C4623810F; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:10:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.9]) by puexch91.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.48]) with mapi; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:09:59 +0200 From: To: "ecordeiro@nic.br" Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:09:58 +0200 Thread-Topic: draft-cordeiro-softwire-experience-mapt Thread-Index: Ac2VBLQiIJALGlCdSFW7hVsz7j1UbQAb7kuA Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E5A40CDE4@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> References: <5051079E.7060706@ericsson.com> <20120917154600.13201ablgpxj2lew@mail.nic.br> In-Reply-To: <20120917154600.13201ablgpxj2lew@mail.nic.br> 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: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2012.6.19.115414 Cc: "softwires@ietf.org" Subject: [Softwires] draft-cordeiro-softwire-experience-mapt 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, 18 Sep 2012 08:10:02 -0000 Dear Edwin, Thank you for sharing the experiment results.=20 I saw you made tests for torrent applications. FWIW, we had done an extensi= ve testing of this application. The results of these testing are valid for = all address sharing variants (including A+P): http://tools.ietf.org/html/dr= aft-boucadair-pcp-bittorrent-00. This I-D provides an explanation for the f= ailure you observed. Cheers, Med=20 >-----Message d'origine----- >De : softwires-bounces@ietf.org=20 >[mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de ecordeiro@nic.br >Envoy=E9 : lundi 17 septembre 2012 20:46 >=C0 : softwires@ietf.org >Objet : Re: [Softwires] Way forward with MAP-T and 4rd > >Hello Suresh and all, > >Regardind MAP-T we, at NIC.br, made some tests to verify the user =20 >experience on a network using MAP-T. > >We published a draft with the results =20 >(http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-cordeiro-softwire-experience-ma >pt-00.txt). > >Any comments are welcome. > >Best Regards, > >Edwin Cordeiro >NIC.br > >Quoting "Suresh Krishnan" : > >> Hi all, >> One of the followup questions we had after choosing the standards >> track solution was to see what the wg wanted to do with the other two >> solutions (MAP-T and 4rd). The sense of the room was that=20 >the wg was in >> favor of not abandoning them. We have not verified this=20 >formally in the >> ML and we have not worked out the exact logistics of how we will go >> about pursuing the other solutions. The chairs will get this process >> started by the end of this week with a set of questions to the wg. >> >> Thanks >> Suresh & Yong >> _______________________________________________ >> Softwires mailing list >> Softwires@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >> > > >_______________________________________________ >Softwires mailing list >Softwires@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >= From ecordeiro@nic.br Tue Sep 18 05:07:18 2012 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 89D0321E80C1 for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 05:07:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.67 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.67 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.930, BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 E9kK3qBukO7x for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 05:07:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.nic.br (mail.cgi.br [IPv6:2001:12ff:0:4::5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 019D221E80C4 for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 05:07:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail.nic.br (Postfix, from userid 33) id A09E92080451; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 09:07:03 -0300 (BRT) Received: from 200-185-250-174.user.ajato.com.br (200-185-250-174.user.ajato.com.br [200.185.250.174]) by mail.nic.br (Horde Framework) with HTTP; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 09:07:03 -0300 Message-ID: <20120918090703.50884lsvm0pc6oyv@mail.nic.br> Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 09:07:03 -0300 From: ecordeiro@nic.br To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com References: <5051079E.7060706@ericsson.com> <20120917154600.13201ablgpxj2lew@mail.nic.br> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E5A40CDE4@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> In-Reply-To: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E5A40CDE4@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.3.7) Cc: "softwires@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Softwires] draft-cordeiro-softwire-experience-mapt 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, 18 Sep 2012 12:07:18 -0000 Thank you Mohamed, I will add a reference to your draft on a future version, as it has a =20 much more detailed information about the torrent limitations with =20 shared addresses. BR, Edwin Quoting mohamed.boucadair@orange.com: > Dear Edwin, > > Thank you for sharing the experiment results. > > I saw you made tests for torrent applications. FWIW, we had done an =20 > extensive testing of this application. The results of these testing =20 > are valid for all address sharing variants (including A+P): =20 > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-pcp-bittorrent-00. This =20 > I-D provides an explanation for the failure you observed. > > Cheers, > Med > >> -----Message d'origine----- >> De : softwires-bounces@ietf.org >> [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de ecordeiro@nic.br >> Envoy=E9 : lundi 17 septembre 2012 20:46 >> =C0 : softwires@ietf.org >> Objet : Re: [Softwires] Way forward with MAP-T and 4rd >> >> Hello Suresh and all, >> >> Regardind MAP-T we, at NIC.br, made some tests to verify the user >> experience on a network using MAP-T. >> >> We published a draft with the results >> (http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-cordeiro-softwire-experience-ma >> pt-00.txt). >> >> Any comments are welcome. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Edwin Cordeiro >> NIC.br >> >> Quoting "Suresh Krishnan" : >> >>> Hi all, >>> One of the followup questions we had after choosing the standards >>> track solution was to see what the wg wanted to do with the other two >>> solutions (MAP-T and 4rd). The sense of the room was that >> the wg was in >>> favor of not abandoning them. We have not verified this >> formally in the >>> ML and we have not worked out the exact logistics of how we will go >>> about pursuing the other solutions. The chairs will get this process >>> started by the end of this week with a set of questions to the wg. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Suresh & Yong >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Softwires mailing list >>> Softwires@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Softwires mailing list >> Softwires@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >> From satoru.matsushima@gmail.com Wed Sep 19 03:24:21 2012 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 CD3F321F8722 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 03:24:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_52=0.6, 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 hY0vZCOyjsD7 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 03:24:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29E1721F871A for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 03:24:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pb0-f44.google.com with SMTP id rr4so2118754pbb.31 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 03:24:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=ZyfxSdx2blSqRyHXNKFb+Eju8JCzZ55c1XKB3MGG7/U=; b=QJ+CA5Jbn3Ch6rpsz3+0C0zXqfDAcu3MKEPD/6/UST7oV7EmUr8EZzRgwIxvuPfWds WEdBDSsi57KtXVnJWFkf8Ct7M2UHn7Al9DiOcNqjiLnsXng09ZFQffc4glHyccPIQ3VK W5rk0sTpGKAta6vDALu/vTFFJzcGz9IJxHRX/q0wiY5Z7xwEWUbGfbhtw3QqZReYhe3S zQahpGPPTRL8ZvP76fOFf5PgLLCGTDOzPz+nqaxyWQB+b5dA+OzT4A1XvymXMVxfwcSF FDm0ABtayuOjvZOF7JRTzZvUzyiBium3EVkOogv7KmPqlh3JVyxAR8J+RyVR8xo3Gx/k z2fA== Received: by 10.68.225.104 with SMTP id rj8mr6162721pbc.97.1348050261066; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 03:24:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.201.80.237] ([202.45.12.141]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id tt6sm1605134pbc.51.2012.09.19.03.24.19 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 19 Sep 2012 03:24:20 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Satoru Matsushima In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 19:24:17 +0900 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <58C07AFE-11C9-4298-8EC2-622F0E3482BA@gmail.com> References: <01874DCB-11A0-42E2-91BD-FF16B03985AF@employees.org> To: sarikaya@ieee.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: Softwires-wg Subject: Re: [Softwires] Comments on draft-ietf-softwire-map-02.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, 19 Sep 2012 10:24:21 -0000 Hi Behcet, On 2012/09/15, at 0:49, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > Ole, > Thanks for your quick reply. > Please see inline. >=20 > On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 2:36 AM, Ole Tr=F8an = wrote: >> Bechet, >>=20 >>> I have some comments on this draft. >>>=20 >>> Regarding Section 5, I am curious why we need the mapping, i.e. >>> Section 5 if we are doing MAP-E? i.e. NAT44'ed IPv4 packet is >>> encapsulated in IPv6 using RFC 2473. RFC2473 defines quite in detail >>> in Section 5 on Tunnel IPv6 Header almost everything needed. >>=20 >> MAP-E does everything MAP does. support of mesh mode, stateless = BRs... >> without mapping how would that be achieved? >>=20 >=20 > Well, this is very well answered in = draft-mdt-softwire-map-encapsulation-00 > Section 8.2 which says that >=20 > all CEs do not look up the mapping rules upon receiving an > IPv4 packet from its LAN side and then CE must encapsulate the IPv4 > packet with IPv6 whose destination must be a given BR. >=20 > referring to the Hub & Spoke model. >=20 > Do we have a similar statement in draft-ietf-softwire-map-02? > I think we should. >=20 It looks that there're two cases for hub-and-spoke mode. One is that a = CE forwards packets with MRT as same as mesh mode, but it has only DMR. = The other is that a CE forwards all packets with following DMR even it = has several FMRs. Do we need to distinguish each of them? then write up = both cases for hub-and-spoke? >>> More specific comments: what is the relationship of this draft with >>> the original MAP-E draft, draft-mdt-softwire-map-encapsulation-00? >>> That draft described in detail how RFC 2473 would be used which is >>> missing in draft-ietf-softwire-map-02. OTOH = draft-ietf-softwire-map-02 >>> does not even reference draft-mdt-softwire-map-encapsulation-00, = why? >>=20 >> draft-ietf-softwire-map has evolved from = draft-mdt-softwire-map-encapsulation and is meant >> to incorporate all the significant parts of it. something may have = fallen out in editing, >> if so please propose text. >=20 > draft-mdt-softwire-map-encapsulation gives details of many things > including encapsulation and fragmentation referring to specific > section of RFC 2473. I think we should carry these important details > to the new and normative draft? >=20 Would you suggest which text should be carried out from previous MAP-E? >=20 > One more issue: >=20 > Regarding Section 7.2 which states that BR MUST use this anycast IPv6 > address as the source > address in packets relayed to CEs. > It seems like this has been carried over from 6rd. >=20 > I have concerns on this MUST. I think that CE has to maintain multiple > tunnel interfaces with BRs if there are more than one BR, right? How > would this be possible if CE does not know the unicast address of BR? >=20 > Also, at times, MAP-E could be stateful. This is explained in Section > 7 of draft-mdt-softwire-map-encapsulation which you do not not have. > How could CE identify the specific BR in this case? >=20 > I suggest changing MUST to MAY or even removing that sentence. It looks you suggest the case which supports multiple DMRs on a CE. Is = that correct understanding? On the CE, the source address of a received = IPv6 packet MUST be the BR address of the DMR(s) which the CE has. cheers, --satoru= From sarikaya2012@gmail.com Wed Sep 19 09:05:16 2012 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 B589621F8754 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 09:05:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.743 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.743 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.344, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_35=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_52=0.6, 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 g-JFVfPoR-xA for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 09:05:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com (mail-ie0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C95821F8752 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 09:05:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iec9 with SMTP id 9so2031825iec.31 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 09:05:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=mwPndqOO0xZdG57SuKPPEJgl5lheoomQy0AQMO4gc0o=; b=Arb/QN7CAMqt0qcApDGaAsJ52/FH46LxTn2bK4T5ynjBqoAOSrZuqZlkPgYvuMb9Gh +9vuQaw5hE0cpuZ+EnZLMwzcIgGSIpcGlorlWWtU/fIwWj+0naQrHkO+OQAF41BprOEE 5M84M+hDAceqAJnXV26m8mB0GNuP8eYvyBGWaJSUG4wT6ps/dSsGODTkrPnUMEgYSWHS HayWxBDsUERLZQzwP0XJv7WGcUpuxU13zC93Dm3HxbCFd0y02T4gYK/mADWB8rggMFrh 6OM1RWd9utwvQEL718UBkcfQFdLNSllOFga+oZ3ENwEsrPbeh0sgHqZGF6FD5Dx8Ohc+ C88w== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.5.239 with SMTP id v15mr3265149igv.41.1348070714664; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 09:05:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.55.70 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 09:05:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <58C07AFE-11C9-4298-8EC2-622F0E3482BA@gmail.com> References: <01874DCB-11A0-42E2-91BD-FF16B03985AF@employees.org> <58C07AFE-11C9-4298-8EC2-622F0E3482BA@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:05:14 -0500 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: Satoru Matsushima Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Softwires-wg Subject: Re: [Softwires] Comments on draft-ietf-softwire-map-02.txt X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: sarikaya@ieee.org List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:05:16 -0000 HI Satoru, I am saying that hub & spoke model is quite simple in case of MAP-E. In the draft, draft-ietf-softwire-map-02, as you have done it in draft-mdt-softwire-map-encapsulation-00, specify hub&spoke case first. I know that mesh model is important for MAP-E as BR may be deployed deep in the network. You are explaining in detail in Section 5. I suggest adding one clarifying statement saying that it applies to the mesh model. As for the details of encapsulation in reference to draft-mdt-softwire-map-encapsulation-00, I suggest that you either make draft-mdt-softwire-map-encapsulation-00 a normative reference and make it up to date, or add some details to draft-ietf-softwire-map-02 on how the encapsulation in MAP-E works in reference to RFC 2473. As for the source address of IPv6 packets sent by BR, I suggest removing the requirement to make it an anycast address. I read in a vendor web site (Cisco) it is stated that anycast addresses must not be used as source addresses. RFC 4291 does not require this though. The reason? As I explained, at times MAP-E is stateful, how would CE find the right BR if it does not know BR's unicast address? I hope the above is clear. I am removing the conversation we had before, but I am curious, what is MRT? I could not find it anywhere? > It looks that there're two cases for hub-and-spoke mode. One is that a CE= forwards packets with MRT as same as mesh mode, but it has only DMR. The o= ther is that a CE forwards all packets with following DMR even it has sever= al FMRs. Do we need to distinguish each of them? then write up both cases f= or hub-and-spoke? > Regards, Behcet From mark@townsley.net Mon Sep 24 08:34:20 2012 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 AFA2121F87D3 for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 08:34:18 -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 iA5KBGtsg-Lq for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 08:34:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bk0-f44.google.com (mail-bk0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE1F221F87CF for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 08:34:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bkty12 with SMTP id y12so2963845bkt.31 for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 08:34:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=from:content-type:subject:date:message-id:cc:to:mime-version :x-mailer:x-gm-message-state; bh=3qbaBUg7BaX9S3kHvOur/Olsf/A8xp4ck+qyGqLNnZA=; b=FlLhlXwGXt66SQR/f81mf66k2R2qw5QwAO4eLZHaODWk1ivKQ7cjqe3RcpCE2iJS7h dXxRNDTCFudqmAWouP9DxUJZO5ypF27a7Bm6Cu6N6jwVCC6f1x/MvnCKKw+mETRqmZrQ C2IDZVmxM4zzCYze3/ykjErfdkxpAENyqckTgq7lpQuNDdESfRxBpDrMbtAoCTumxtXr 3L6Gx1ej0XWtRwZkBFSgvNRqk/nVYpzOjSWZYo8UOZ09fxWp0JANkoiIIUNHuYszqvVn XSkV8WK9CGaJsMSeAFY+kO3z/I1GbdI0jMe8YNaN8+0s/XKcVTQDznGrKEITgeW8cMBe Nvng== Received: by 10.204.150.200 with SMTP id z8mr3710253bkv.139.1348500852107; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 08:34:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:67c:64:42:6913:2d13:215:6de9? ([2001:67c:64:42:6913:2d13:215:6de9]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n17sm10807956bks.6.2012.09.24.08.34.09 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 24 Sep 2012 08:34:10 -0700 (PDT) From: Mark Townsley Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B27AE3D9-2D90-4CBC-A66A-5B73E70ACFA4" Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 17:34:07 +0200 Message-Id: <6BDE818F-B740-4A50-9E2C-36959C722117@townsley.net> To: Softwires WG Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnalt024R0yaR8S/lJDyDHhNkZqcnYsUx7vxVGNwEGlexLNuDfI2QNgz1sgBEc+ccenhXQf Cc: Arthur Lacoste Subject: [Softwires] MAP tool now available for Android and Apple mobile devices 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, 24 Sep 2012 15:34:20 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_B27AE3D9-2D90-4CBC-A66A-5B73E70ACFA4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Arthur's MAP Calculator tool is now published on the iTunes and Android = store: = http://itunes.apple.com/ca/app/cisco-map-calculator/id561121079?mt=3D8&ign= -mpt=3Duo%3D2 https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=3Dmap.calculator&hl=3Den Just search for "Cisco Map Calculator" and you should find it. They are = of course free.=20 Enjoy, - Mark --Apple-Mail=_B27AE3D9-2D90-4CBC-A66A-5B73E70ACFA4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

Arthur's MAP Calculator tool is now published on the iTunes and Android store:



Just search for "Cisco Map Calculator" and you should find it. They are of course free. 

Enjoy,

- Mark

--Apple-Mail=_B27AE3D9-2D90-4CBC-A66A-5B73E70ACFA4-- From suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com Mon Sep 24 21:45:24 2012 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 2743A21F8924 for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 21:45:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 CgcfkajTpIWY for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 21:45:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 016EE21F8923 for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 21:45:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0707.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.32]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id q8P4pMB7030124 for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 23:51:24 -0500 Received: from [164.48.125.31] (147.117.20.214) by smtps-am.internal.ericsson.com (147.117.20.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.264.1; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 00:45:14 -0400 Message-ID: <506136D3.1080700@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 00:45:07 -0400 From: Suresh Krishnan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120827 Thunderbird/15.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Softwires WG X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Softwires] Way forward with MAP-T and 4rd 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, 25 Sep 2012 04:45:24 -0000 Hi all, During the softwire WG meeting at IETF84 a series of questions* to determine the preferred solution in the meeting room indicated that the sense of the room was in favor of MAP-E as the basis for the proposed standard stateless solution. There was also general agreement in the room to continue working on MAP-T and 4rd as experimental/informational specifications. After the meeting, there has also been some uncertainty as to the order in which the different drafts would progress from the wg, This call is being initiated to confirm two things: a) whether there is WG consensus towards continuing working on MAP-T and 4rd as experimental documents. b) whether there is WG consensus that MAP-E should be progressed to working group last call & IESG review before MAP-T and 4rd.** Please state whether or not you're in favor of each of these decisions by replying to this email. If you are not in favor, please also (re)state your objections in your response. The call will complete at midnight EDT on 2012-10-05. Regards Suresh & Yong * Questions are available at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-softwire-15.pdf ** Note that work on MAP-T and 4rd can proceed in parallel with MAP-E and we are not aiming to freeze work on these drafts. They just will not be progressed from the WG before MAP-E is progressed. This is to ensure that the drafts do not end up competing for the available (finite) review cycles. From suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com Mon Sep 24 21:45:37 2012 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 3CFDE21F8931 for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 21:45:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 Y2i53qi7261C for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 21:45:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C105D21F892C for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 21:45:36 -0700 (PDT) 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 q8P4pcVh030141 for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 23:51:40 -0500 Received: from [164.48.125.31] (147.117.20.214) by smtps-am.internal.ericsson.com (147.117.20.181) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.264.1; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 00:45:30 -0400 Message-ID: <506136E6.6020100@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 00:45:26 -0400 From: Suresh Krishnan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120827 Thunderbird/15.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Softwires WG X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Softwires] Confirming way forward with MAP-T and 4rd 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, 25 Sep 2012 04:45:37 -0000 Hi all, During the softwire WG meeting at IETF84 a series of questions* to determine the preferred solution in the meeting room indicated that the sense of the room was in favor of MAP-E as the basis for the proposed standard stateless solution. There was also general agreement in the room to continue working on MAP-T and 4rd as experimental/informational specifications. After the meeting, there has also been some uncertainty as to the order in which the different drafts would progress from the wg, This call is being initiated to confirm two things: a) whether there is WG consensus towards continuing working on MAP-T and 4rd as experimental documents. b) whether there is WG consensus that MAP-E should be progressed to working group last call & IESG review before MAP-T and 4rd.** Please state whether or not you're in favor of each of these decisions by replying to this email. If you are not in favor, please also (re)state your objections in your response. The call will complete at midnight EDT on 2012-10-05. Regards Suresh & Yong * Questions are available at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-softwire-15.pdf ** Note that work on MAP-T and 4rd can proceed in parallel with MAP-E and we are not aiming to freeze work on these drafts. They just will not be progressed from the WG before MAP-E is progressed. This is to ensure that the drafts do not end up competing for the available (finite) review cycles. From suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com Mon Sep 24 23:27:39 2012 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 D61A621F890A for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 23:27:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 eTh6DHlxpXsy for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 23:27:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr3.ericy.com (imr3.ericy.com [198.24.6.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A96821F8820 for ; Mon, 24 Sep 2012 23:27:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0707.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.32]) by imr3.ericy.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q8P6Rb6x005399 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 01:27:37 -0500 Received: from [164.48.125.31] (147.117.20.214) by smtps-am.internal.ericsson.com (147.117.20.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.264.1; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 02:27:37 -0400 Message-ID: <50614ED1.80504@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 02:27:29 -0400 From: Suresh Krishnan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120827 Thunderbird/15.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Softwires WG X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Softwires] Review of draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-03.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: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 06:27:39 -0000 Hi authors, I went over this draft to check whether it is ready to advance from the WG. The latest revision of the draft is highly improved and has addressed most of the concerns I had on clarity. I do have a few minor concerns though, and I would like to see them addressed before sending the draft along the publication process. * Introduction The draft needs a bit more motivation on why an ISP with a lot of IPv4 address resources does not simply run dual stack. * Section 3 4over6 CE: This section seems to be stating that the 4over6 CE does not provide IPv6 service to the customer network if it is a CPE. Is this true? If so, this seems to be wrong and needs to be fixed. * Section 4 It is not clear how this mechanism "integrates easily" with DS-Lite as claimed. Can you add a bit more text on how this will be accomplished * Section 5.1 The arrows in the figure are confusing. e.g. what information does the 4over6 CE provide to the DHCPv6 server. If none, why is the arrow bidirectional? Suggest making the arrows unidirectional to show the flow of information. * Section 6 Which DHCPv6 option does the 4over6 CE use to get the BR address. Is it the AFTR-Name option? This needs to be clarified. Thanks Suresh From wdec.ietf@gmail.com Tue Sep 25 02:21:54 2012 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 2469821F8826 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 02:21:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.243 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.243 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.355, 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 GwU5MAGd3Nqg for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 02:21:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ee0-f44.google.com (mail-ee0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B30121F8846 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 02:21:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eekd4 with SMTP id d4so812618eek.31 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 02:21:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=Of/Gsk+DtP2sOaDRKfV8MO9J2mhJdPUyKYKSsaiHWSc=; b=RtM9kO4x/m0NV4OjUThXNJQ9hU/YiXoedCRliTtgs1ootVypSYPkheq1laV11hyWuA 4tlSn3D6wTCsB0S/grpuByv6hwrxnQqN08fGu6BKo9nfI/gw0xvAc/0juBST60YNM96k 6j0TD0kXFtvHbel4nzf0wQ54kgeFiWzwp8GD3dZN5fZWGAfDalrndOIrT7bF2LTmBSSs +flAtQE2CGJ78Vj/zYq4Zn4UxCSYSMjO/CfJaOky2fc81XcIitM/sCNNqps6cc29dWCy hbfzqHSCQh/VPVZTjJ4sOOl4rOAGJdKGUyIdu5tza7+LPUl94/3qMEIDOBL6QEmpQZYp SIVQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.14.205.9 with SMTP id i9mr6406774eeo.21.1348564912248; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 02:21:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.45.68 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 02:21:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <506136E6.6020100@ericsson.com> References: <506136E6.6020100@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 11:21:52 +0200 Message-ID: From: Wojciech Dec To: Suresh Krishnan Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b343cf48d15b004ca833c04 Cc: Softwires WG Subject: Re: [Softwires] Confirming way forward with MAP-T and 4rd 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, 25 Sep 2012 09:21:54 -0000 --047d7b343cf48d15b004ca833c04 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Suresh, I'm in favour on both things. Thanks, Woj. On 25 September 2012 06:45, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > Hi all, > During the softwire WG meeting at IETF84 a series of questions* to > determine the preferred solution in the meeting room indicated that the > sense of the room was in favor of MAP-E as the basis for the proposed > standard stateless solution. There was also general agreement in the > room to continue working on MAP-T and 4rd as experimental/informational > specifications. After the meeting, there has also been some uncertainty > as to the order in which the different drafts would progress from the wg, > > This call is being initiated to confirm two things: > > a) whether there is WG consensus towards continuing working on MAP-T and > 4rd as experimental documents. > b) whether there is WG consensus that MAP-E should be progressed to > working group last call & IESG review before MAP-T and 4rd.** > > Please state whether or not you're in favor of each of these decisions > by replying to this email. If you are not in favor, please also > (re)state your objections in your response. > > The call will complete at midnight EDT on 2012-10-05. > > Regards > Suresh & Yong > > * Questions are available at > > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-softwire-15.pdf > > ** Note that work on MAP-T and 4rd can proceed in parallel with MAP-E > and we are not aiming to freeze work on these drafts. They just will not > be progressed from the WG before MAP-E is progressed. This is to ensure > that the drafts do not end up competing for the available (finite) > review cycles. > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > --047d7b343cf48d15b004ca833c04 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Suresh,

I'm in favour on both things.

Thanks,
Woj.<= br>
On 25 September 2012 06:45, Suresh Krishn= an <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> wrote:
Hi all,
=A0 During the softwire WG meeting at IETF84 a series of questions* to
determine the preferred solution in the meeting room indicated that the
sense of the room was in favor of MAP-E as the basis for the proposed
standard stateless solution. There was also general agreement in the
room to continue working on MAP-T and 4rd as experimental/informational
specifications. After the meeting, there has also been some uncertainty
as to the order in which the different drafts would progress from the wg,
This call is being initiated to confirm two things:

a) whether there is WG consensus towards continuing working on MAP-T and 4rd as experimental documents.
b) whether there is WG consensus that MAP-E should be progressed to
working group last call & IESG review before MAP-T and 4rd.**

Please state whether or not you're in favor of each of these decisions<= br> by replying to this email. If you are not in favor, please also
(re)state your objections in your response.

The call will complete at midnight EDT on 2012-10-05.

Regards
Suresh & Yong

* Questions are available at

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-= softwire-15.pdf

** Note that work on MAP-T and 4rd can proceed in parallel with MAP-E
and we are not aiming to freeze work on these drafts. They just will not be progressed from the WG before MAP-E is progressed. This is to ensure
that the drafts do not end up competing for the available (finite)
review cycles.
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

--047d7b343cf48d15b004ca833c04-- From jiangsheng@huawei.com Tue Sep 25 02:57:07 2012 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 EC61821F8855 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 02:57:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 i7MFJq1tyI3z for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 02:57:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0722C21F8823 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 02:57:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AJZ63063; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:57:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:56:27 +0100 Received: from SZXEML416-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.155) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:57:04 +0100 Received: from szxeml545-mbx.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.98]) by szxeml416-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.155]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:56:54 +0800 From: Sheng Jiang To: Suresh Krishnan , Softwires WG Thread-Topic: [Softwires] Confirming way forward with MAP-T and 4rd Thread-Index: AQHNmtilCzI1p/ftPUyI7gc2ewhioJea0iKA Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:56:54 +0000 Message-ID: <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B9239F50987@szxeml545-mbx.china.huawei.com> References: <506136E6.6020100@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <506136E6.6020100@ericsson.com> Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.99.31] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: Re: [Softwires] Confirming way forward with MAP-T and 4rd 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, 25 Sep 2012 09:57:08 -0000 SGksIFN1cmVzaCwNCg0KSSBkaWQgcmFpc2UgbXkgaGFuZCBmb3IgYm90aCBxdWVzdGlvbnMgYmFj ayB0byBWYW5jb3V2ZXIgYW5kIGl0IHJlbWFpbnMuDQoNCkJlc3QgcmVnYXJkcywNCg0KU2hlbmcN Cg0KPi0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0tDQo+RnJvbTogc29mdHdpcmVzLWJvdW5jZXNA aWV0Zi5vcmcgW21haWx0bzpzb2Z0d2lyZXMtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZ10gT24NCj5CZWhhbGYg T2YgU3VyZXNoIEtyaXNobmFuDQo+U2VudDogVHVlc2RheSwgU2VwdGVtYmVyIDI1LCAyMDEyIDEy OjQ1IFBNDQo+VG86IFNvZnR3aXJlcyBXRw0KPlN1YmplY3Q6IFtTb2Z0d2lyZXNdIENvbmZpcm1p bmcgd2F5IGZvcndhcmQgd2l0aCBNQVAtVCBhbmQgNHJkDQo+DQo+SGkgYWxsLA0KPiAgRHVyaW5n IHRoZSBzb2Z0d2lyZSBXRyBtZWV0aW5nIGF0IElFVEY4NCBhIHNlcmllcyBvZiBxdWVzdGlvbnMq IHRvDQo+ZGV0ZXJtaW5lIHRoZSBwcmVmZXJyZWQgc29sdXRpb24gaW4gdGhlIG1lZXRpbmcgcm9v bSBpbmRpY2F0ZWQgdGhhdCB0aGUNCj5zZW5zZSBvZiB0aGUgcm9vbSB3YXMgaW4gZmF2b3Igb2Yg TUFQLUUgYXMgdGhlIGJhc2lzIGZvciB0aGUgcHJvcG9zZWQNCj5zdGFuZGFyZCBzdGF0ZWxlc3Mg c29sdXRpb24uIFRoZXJlIHdhcyBhbHNvIGdlbmVyYWwgYWdyZWVtZW50IGluIHRoZQ0KPnJvb20g dG8gY29udGludWUgd29ya2luZyBvbiBNQVAtVCBhbmQgNHJkIGFzIGV4cGVyaW1lbnRhbC9pbmZv cm1hdGlvbmFsDQo+c3BlY2lmaWNhdGlvbnMuIEFmdGVyIHRoZSBtZWV0aW5nLCB0aGVyZSBoYXMg YWxzbyBiZWVuIHNvbWUgdW5jZXJ0YWludHkNCj5hcyB0byB0aGUgb3JkZXIgaW4gd2hpY2ggdGhl IGRpZmZlcmVudCBkcmFmdHMgd291bGQgcHJvZ3Jlc3MgZnJvbSB0aGUgd2csDQo+DQo+VGhpcyBj YWxsIGlzIGJlaW5nIGluaXRpYXRlZCB0byBjb25maXJtIHR3byB0aGluZ3M6DQo+DQo+YSkgd2hl dGhlciB0aGVyZSBpcyBXRyBjb25zZW5zdXMgdG93YXJkcyBjb250aW51aW5nIHdvcmtpbmcgb24g TUFQLVQgYW5kDQo+NHJkIGFzIGV4cGVyaW1lbnRhbCBkb2N1bWVudHMuDQo+Yikgd2hldGhlciB0 aGVyZSBpcyBXRyBjb25zZW5zdXMgdGhhdCBNQVAtRSBzaG91bGQgYmUgcHJvZ3Jlc3NlZCB0bw0K PndvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAgbGFzdCBjYWxsICYgSUVTRyByZXZpZXcgYmVmb3JlIE1BUC1UIGFuZCA0 cmQuKioNCj4NCj5QbGVhc2Ugc3RhdGUgd2hldGhlciBvciBub3QgeW91J3JlIGluIGZhdm9yIG9m IGVhY2ggb2YgdGhlc2UgZGVjaXNpb25zDQo+YnkgcmVwbHlpbmcgdG8gdGhpcyBlbWFpbC4gSWYg eW91IGFyZSBub3QgaW4gZmF2b3IsIHBsZWFzZSBhbHNvDQo+KHJlKXN0YXRlIHlvdXIgb2JqZWN0 aW9ucyBpbiB5b3VyIHJlc3BvbnNlLg0KPg0KPlRoZSBjYWxsIHdpbGwgY29tcGxldGUgYXQgbWlk bmlnaHQgRURUIG9uIDIwMTItMTAtMDUuDQo+DQo+UmVnYXJkcw0KPlN1cmVzaCAmIFlvbmcNCj4N Cj4qIFF1ZXN0aW9ucyBhcmUgYXZhaWxhYmxlIGF0DQo+DQo+aHR0cDovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9w cm9jZWVkaW5ncy84NC9zbGlkZXMvc2xpZGVzLTg0LXNvZnR3aXJlLTE1LnBkZg0KPg0KPioqIE5v dGUgdGhhdCB3b3JrIG9uIE1BUC1UIGFuZCA0cmQgY2FuIHByb2NlZWQgaW4gcGFyYWxsZWwgd2l0 aCBNQVAtRQ0KPmFuZCB3ZSBhcmUgbm90IGFpbWluZyB0byBmcmVlemUgd29yayBvbiB0aGVzZSBk cmFmdHMuIFRoZXkganVzdCB3aWxsIG5vdA0KPmJlIHByb2dyZXNzZWQgZnJvbSB0aGUgV0cgYmVm b3JlIE1BUC1FIGlzIHByb2dyZXNzZWQuIFRoaXMgaXMgdG8gZW5zdXJlDQo+dGhhdCB0aGUgZHJh ZnRzIGRvIG5vdCBlbmQgdXAgY29tcGV0aW5nIGZvciB0aGUgYXZhaWxhYmxlIChmaW5pdGUpDQo+ cmV2aWV3IGN5Y2xlcy4NCj5fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fXw0KPlNvZnR3aXJlcyBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNCj5Tb2Z0d2lyZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj5o dHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL3NvZnR3aXJlcw0K From fibrib@gmail.com Tue Sep 25 03:11:31 2012 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 BD53B21F84D3 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 03:11:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.253 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.253 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.345, 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 tKr6R3ndzpYi for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 03:11:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ee0-f44.google.com (mail-ee0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEC7121F86D0 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 03:11:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eekd4 with SMTP id d4so861893eek.31 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 03:11:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=7z8T3Ot+V20oZ0NsUS5fsE35E3gkXcAV7lhN0gI9aJg=; b=Bg1XvsSxOMIJz86eDC5pqL+iW8J6twQp4/SV3YF9DEiIY8OzoiNLXSgSL4A+Rf3aRe SBxNQHAhQUTd/mCsA0PCsn2B65BS86YGXAuVHWV4aaP2cbGlLc8aHMYMNVhpvrnmfglt JV+4IdpVLEGEnU/N7RhD5Hd1Q0pCZbpkfcO+8TEFMFIyrqGr78xOnanl3ik/JAIXcYEr 7S/jEDXYI2inpP6qnvGbp5YfuZmnVImD+H1HKgmI+I8fzFjS7jXQ82qSd9J0ZQBRvWfe x1zzAXV9CQbUhkHYFS5ELMFzDsFz9mHZzBrLETkIbQfWg/92u+3wcY0TDHrn1aUAPglh xEKQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.14.220.134 with SMTP id o6mr18546374eep.35.1348567889739; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 03:11:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.53.7 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 03:11:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <506136E6.6020100@ericsson.com> References: <506136E6.6020100@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 19:11:29 +0900 Message-ID: From: Maoke To: Suresh Krishnan Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b62274e05fe9804ca83eeb9 Cc: Softwires WG Subject: Re: [Softwires] Confirming way forward with MAP-T and 4rd 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, 25 Sep 2012 10:11:31 -0000 --047d7b62274e05fe9804ca83eeb9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 dear chairs, i confirm i am in favour of both. - maoke 2012/9/25 Suresh Krishnan > Hi all, > During the softwire WG meeting at IETF84 a series of questions* to > determine the preferred solution in the meeting room indicated that the > sense of the room was in favor of MAP-E as the basis for the proposed > standard stateless solution. There was also general agreement in the > room to continue working on MAP-T and 4rd as experimental/informational > specifications. After the meeting, there has also been some uncertainty > as to the order in which the different drafts would progress from the wg, > > This call is being initiated to confirm two things: > > a) whether there is WG consensus towards continuing working on MAP-T and > 4rd as experimental documents. > b) whether there is WG consensus that MAP-E should be progressed to > working group last call & IESG review before MAP-T and 4rd.** > > Please state whether or not you're in favor of each of these decisions > by replying to this email. If you are not in favor, please also > (re)state your objections in your response. > > The call will complete at midnight EDT on 2012-10-05. > > Regards > Suresh & Yong > > * Questions are available at > > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-softwire-15.pdf > > ** Note that work on MAP-T and 4rd can proceed in parallel with MAP-E > and we are not aiming to freeze work on these drafts. They just will not > be progressed from the WG before MAP-E is progressed. This is to ensure > that the drafts do not end up competing for the available (finite) > review cycles. > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > --047d7b62274e05fe9804ca83eeb9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

dear chairs,=A0

i confirm = i am in favour of both.=A0

- maoke

2012/9/25 Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan= @ericsson.com>
Hi all,
=A0 During the softwire WG meeting at IETF84 a series of questions* to
determine the preferred solution in the meeting room indicated that the
sense of the room was in favor of MAP-E as the basis for the proposed
standard stateless solution. There was also general agreement in the
room to continue working on MAP-T and 4rd as experimental/informational
specifications. After the meeting, there has also been some uncertainty
as to the order in which the different drafts would progress from the wg,
This call is being initiated to confirm two things:

a) whether there is WG consensus towards continuing working on MAP-T and 4rd as experimental documents.
b) whether there is WG consensus that MAP-E should be progressed to
working group last call & IESG review before MAP-T and 4rd.**

Please state whether or not you're in favor of each of these decisions<= br> by replying to this email. If you are not in favor, please also
(re)state your objections in your response.

The call will complete at midnight EDT on 2012-10-05.

Regards
Suresh & Yong

* Questions are available at

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-= softwire-15.pdf

** Note that work on MAP-T and 4rd can proceed in parallel with MAP-E
and we are not aiming to freeze work on these drafts. They just will not be progressed from the WG before MAP-E is progressed. This is to ensure
that the drafts do not end up competing for the available (finite)
review cycles.
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

--047d7b62274e05fe9804ca83eeb9-- From rajiva@cisco.com Tue Sep 25 05:01:32 2012 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 5CA9D21F8866 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 05:01:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 qMos80KYEjMd for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 05:01:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59DFC21F8853 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 05:01:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1990; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1348574491; x=1349784091; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=vF9+H2/4RNwRSbVXLgBrRLVA4Ht8R7SLaQDKH5gn6/w=; b=nHd15s6QGCxmPowH5KZViDXkMcNfoNPGcBCwumkhXfRL0cnOXrbobnwP Ku5oDtkTuAIQFvFyBxGWiPBOD4nkcrAfZ548N/YzgWW05dx49Bui/YH8o 2h9l5SfQQHs5SfC3Do0uoM1QWCTqkDGqsvAegAZcthZ+31Y2pIBp4fhIN 4=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EALecYVCtJXG//2dsb2JhbABFvmmBCIIgAQEBAgEBAQEBDwEnNAsFCwIBCDYQJwslAgQOBQkSB4ddBguYKo9XkQOLG4ViYAOSNIMxjjuBaYJngWM X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,481,1344211200"; d="scan'208";a="125078864" Received: from rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com ([173.37.113.191]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Sep 2012 12:01:15 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com [173.37.183.81]) by rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q8PC1F9R007152 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:01:15 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.6.230]) by xhc-rcd-x07.cisco.com ([173.37.183.81]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 07:01:15 -0500 From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" To: Suresh Krishnan Thread-Topic: [Softwires] Confirming way forward with MAP-T and 4rd Thread-Index: AQHNmtilPiummbmamUaKCfg5+hQRJZea9Ts4 Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:01:14 +0000 Message-ID: <06FB86AE-5BC4-4521-9FB4-DACB3FBAEE1B@cisco.com> References: <506136E6.6020100@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <506136E6.6020100@ericsson.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19208.004 x-tm-as-result: No--42.069200-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Softwires WG Subject: Re: [Softwires] Confirming way forward with MAP-T and 4rd 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, 25 Sep 2012 12:01:32 -0000 Favor of both.=20 When will the opportunity be to change from experimental to standards? and= what will it take ? =20 Thanks. Cheers, Rajiv Sent from my Phone On Sep 25, 2012, at 12:45 AM, "Suresh Krishnan" wrote: > Hi all, > During the softwire WG meeting at IETF84 a series of questions* to > determine the preferred solution in the meeting room indicated that the > sense of the room was in favor of MAP-E as the basis for the proposed > standard stateless solution. There was also general agreement in the > room to continue working on MAP-T and 4rd as experimental/informational > specifications. After the meeting, there has also been some uncertainty > as to the order in which the different drafts would progress from the wg, >=20 > This call is being initiated to confirm two things: >=20 > a) whether there is WG consensus towards continuing working on MAP-T and > 4rd as experimental documents. > b) whether there is WG consensus that MAP-E should be progressed to > working group last call & IESG review before MAP-T and 4rd.** >=20 > Please state whether or not you're in favor of each of these decisions > by replying to this email. If you are not in favor, please also > (re)state your objections in your response. >=20 > The call will complete at midnight EDT on 2012-10-05. >=20 > Regards > Suresh & Yong >=20 > * Questions are available at >=20 > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-softwire-15.pdf >=20 > ** Note that work on MAP-T and 4rd can proceed in parallel with MAP-E > and we are not aiming to freeze work on these drafts. They just will not > be progressed from the WG before MAP-E is progressed. This is to ensure > that the drafts do not end up competing for the available (finite) > review cycles. > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires From yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com Tue Sep 25 05:40:50 2012 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 114A521F8630 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 05:40:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.231 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.231 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, 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 wV03CnaCKEcc for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 05:40:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cable.comcast.com (copdcavout01.cable.comcast.com [76.96.32.253]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B58A21F8584 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 05:40:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([24.40.56.114]) by copdcavout01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP id C7WM3M1.34875018; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 06:18:36 -0600 Received: from PACDCEXMB05.cable.comcast.com ([169.254.7.116]) by PACDCEXHUB01.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::84e8:95f3:f13b:169e%12]) with mapi id 14.02.0309.002; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 08:40:45 -0400 From: "Lee, Yiu" To: Softwires WG Thread-Topic: [Softwires] Confirming way forward with MAP-T and 4rd Thread-Index: AQHNmxr6VSBNChHYUkOTqGaYAbzg3g== Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 12:40:43 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <06FB86AE-5BC4-4521-9FB4-DACB3FBAEE1B@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.4.120824 x-originating-ip: [24.40.55.73] Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="B_3431407243_37124" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Softwires] Confirming way forward with MAP-T and 4rd 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, 25 Sep 2012 12:40:50 -0000 --B_3431407243_37124 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit +1 Favor of both On 9/25/12 8:01 AM, "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" wrote: >Favor of both. > > > >When will the opportunity be to change from experimental to standards? >and what will it take ? > >Thanks. > >Cheers, >Rajiv > >Sent from my Phone > >On Sep 25, 2012, at 12:45 AM, "Suresh Krishnan" > wrote: > >> Hi all, >> During the softwire WG meeting at IETF84 a series of questions* to >> determine the preferred solution in the meeting room indicated that the >> sense of the room was in favor of MAP-E as the basis for the proposed >> standard stateless solution. There was also general agreement in the >> room to continue working on MAP-T and 4rd as experimental/informational >> specifications. After the meeting, there has also been some uncertainty >> as to the order in which the different drafts would progress from the >>wg, >> >> This call is being initiated to confirm two things: >> >> a) whether there is WG consensus towards continuing working on MAP-T and >> 4rd as experimental documents. >> b) whether there is WG consensus that MAP-E should be progressed to >> working group last call & IESG review before MAP-T and 4rd.** >> >> Please state whether or not you're in favor of each of these decisions >> by replying to this email. If you are not in favor, please also >> (re)state your objections in your response. >> >> The call will complete at midnight EDT on 2012-10-05. >> >> Regards >> Suresh & Yong >> >> * Questions are available at >> >> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-softwire-15.pdf >> >> ** Note that work on MAP-T and 4rd can proceed in parallel with MAP-E >> and we are not aiming to freeze work on these drafts. They just will not >> be progressed from the WG before MAP-E is progressed. This is to ensure >> that the drafts do not end up competing for the available (finite) >> review cycles. >> _______________________________________________ >> Softwires mailing list >> Softwires@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >_______________________________________________ >Softwires mailing list >Softwires@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires --B_3431407243_37124 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" MIIVmQYJKoZIhvcNAQcCoIIVijCCFYYCAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMAsGCSqGSIb3DQEHAaCC EzEwggU0MIIEHKADAgECAhEAzuhISIgzOwSitfbc2LN4WDANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADCBkzEL MAkGA1UEBhMCR0IxGzAZBgNVBAgTEkdyZWF0ZXIgTWFuY2hlc3RlcjEQMA4GA1UEBxMHU2Fs Zm9yZDEaMBgGA1UEChMRQ09NT0RPIENBIExpbWl0ZWQxOTA3BgNVBAMTMENPTU9ETyBDbGll bnQgQXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24gYW5kIFNlY3VyZSBFbWFpbCBDQTAeFw0xMjA4MjgwMDAwMDBa Fw0xMzA4MjgyMzU5NTlaMCoxKDAmBgkqhkiG9w0BCQEWGXlpdV9sZWVAY2FibGUuY29tY2Fz dC5jb20wggEiMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUAA4IBDwAwggEKAoIBAQCscOeu5/EoYRdja1jb6L4x o0TIevelc17NsPuRHfr2z3BGUMbfsJY1p0uXO9+inBQoBXwb07ac3SbOjA/6Ef3NlMPItWdT RGeFL6e/sMju9RgVyJURFnFgp7tc2tffnPOupnKZeeRehXeEFjun6+GC6teb1kSMu+WMMaCa D7/XSK+Q+F0Udc2Av0/gUCkGfTDpNnYwutfctEMRnle6EYUqmJMN4C0crEfovmYdMFFgJLKs Wa5Cdc+naFoIqzW8AcZB6+1XUDTzFbgjqgUbFFZFPzVZqNxLDFNy4tn8VlRSp2jBhgwQHtk1 ZA+spFENaeUuebp4tczj0IHG683FhhWjAgMBAAGjggHpMIIB5TAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBR6E04A dFvGeGNkJ8Ev4qBbvHnFezAdBgNVHQ4EFgQUz03csl7CmjwQY+spX9VWeGb5sVQwDgYDVR0P AQH/BAQDAgWgMAwGA1UdEwEB/wQCMAAwIAYDVR0lBBkwFwYIKwYBBQUHAwQGCysGAQQBsjEB AwUCMBEGCWCGSAGG+EIBAQQEAwIFIDBGBgNVHSAEPzA9MDsGDCsGAQQBsjEBAgEBATArMCkG CCsGAQUFBwIBFh1odHRwczovL3NlY3VyZS5jb21vZG8ubmV0L0NQUzBXBgNVHR8EUDBOMEyg SqBIhkZodHRwOi8vY3JsLmNvbW9kb2NhLmNvbS9DT01PRE9DbGllbnRBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlv bmFuZFNlY3VyZUVtYWlsQ0EuY3JsMIGIBggrBgEFBQcBAQR8MHowUgYIKwYBBQUHMAKGRmh0 dHA6Ly9jcnQuY29tb2RvY2EuY29tL0NPTU9ET0NsaWVudEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uYW5kU2Vj dXJlRW1haWxDQS5jcnQwJAYIKwYBBQUHMAGGGGh0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLmNvbW9kb2NhLmNvbTAk BgNVHREEHTAbgRl5aXVfbGVlQGNhYmxlLmNvbWNhc3QuY29tMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4IB AQBG7LORtWcmzDlw0N/D5AwfsSLe93essAqKFhJ+nt7SmMVBsxGzFnSsZGQHMYQ4UXtiVq9A NjtPk00F3DC3QGxe4mxdwF9LzeYHpHMpCHTzNyilSimKZolLNBO+MO/U0u79rdF2W+dOAwkB dzroWBxK+yMhijJn2DCE/1pgxqBz+c9zbAtJYPVpgbeGNvvfIp6CA/JYsupQNqPX49a4MdJ3 L9yXLTiegSE8uPUlCB3sHZclQOXAttuMewpcKDoIC4wZgERKQqRH61PQO100GLKUO+VrTq+f xNkjOAqA+dih6QO5Djbv3qcMTCcAChJQYK8BS7jved8XgEVa0Ihz7oWKMIIFGjCCBAKgAwIB AgIQbRnqpxlPajMi5iIyeqpx3jANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQUFADCBrjELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxCzAJ BgNVBAgTAlVUMRcwFQYDVQQHEw5TYWx0IExha2UgQ2l0eTEeMBwGA1UEChMVVGhlIFVTRVJU UlVTVCBOZXR3b3JrMSEwHwYDVQQLExhodHRwOi8vd3d3LnVzZXJ0cnVzdC5jb20xNjA0BgNV BAMTLVVUTi1VU0VSRmlyc3QtQ2xpZW50IEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uIGFuZCBFbWFpbDAeFw0x MTA0MjgwMDAwMDBaFw0yMDA1MzAxMDQ4MzhaMIGTMQswCQYDVQQGEwJHQjEbMBkGA1UECBMS R3JlYXRlciBNYW5jaGVzdGVyMRAwDgYDVQQHEwdTYWxmb3JkMRowGAYDVQQKExFDT01PRE8g Q0EgTGltaXRlZDE5MDcGA1UEAxMwQ09NT0RPIENsaWVudCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQg U2VjdXJlIEVtYWlsIENBMIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAkoSEW0tX mNReL4uk4UDIo1NYX2Zl8TJO958yfVXQeExVt0KU4PkncQfFxmmkuTLE8UAakMwnVmJ/F7Vx aa7lIBvky2NeYMqiQfZq4aP/uN8fSG1lQ4wqLitjOHffsReswtqCAtbUMmrUZ28gE49cNfrl VICv2HEKHTcKAlBTbJUdqRAUtJmVWRIx/wmi0kzcUtve4kABW0ho3cVKtODtJB86r3FfB+Os vxQ7sCVxaD30D9YXWEYVgTxoi4uDD216IVfmNLDbMn7jSuGlUnJkJpFOpZIP/+CxYP0ab2hR mWONGoulzEKbm30iY9OpoPzOnpDfRBn0XFs1uhbzp5v/wQIDAQABo4IBSzCCAUcwHwYDVR0j BBgwFoAUiYJnfcSdJnAAS7RQSHzePa4Ebn0wHQYDVR0OBBYEFHoTTgB0W8Z4Y2QnwS/ioFu8 ecV7MA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIBBjASBgNVHRMBAf8ECDAGAQH/AgEAMBEGA1UdIAQKMAgwBgYE VR0gADBYBgNVHR8EUTBPME2gS6BJhkdodHRwOi8vY3JsLnVzZXJ0cnVzdC5jb20vVVROLVVT RVJGaXJzdC1DbGllbnRBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbmFuZEVtYWlsLmNybDB0BggrBgEFBQcBAQRo MGYwPQYIKwYBBQUHMAKGMWh0dHA6Ly9jcnQudXNlcnRydXN0LmNvbS9VVE5BZGRUcnVzdENs aWVudF9DQS5jcnQwJQYIKwYBBQUHMAGGGWh0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLnVzZXJ0cnVzdC5jb20wDQYJ KoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBAIXWvnhXVW0zf0RS/kLVBqgBA4CK+w2y/Uq/9q9BSfUbWsXSrRtz bj7pJnzmTJjBMCjfy/tCPKElPgp11tA9OYZm0aGbtU2bb68obB2v5ep0WqjascDxdXovnrqT ecr+4pEeVnSy+I3T4ENyG+2P/WA5IEf7i686ZUg8mD2lJb+972DgSeUWyOs/Q4Pw4O4NwdPN M1+b0L1garM7/vrUyTo8H+2b/5tJM75CKTmD7jNpLoKdRU2oadqAGx490hpdfEeZpZsIbRKZ htZdVwcbpzC+S0lEuJB+ytF5OOu0M/qgOl0mWJ5hVRi0IdWZ1eBDQEIwvuql55TSsP7zdfl/ bucwggSdMIIDhaADAgECAhA0PekrrCc0/4/LNJT7zHBUMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMG8xCzAJ BgNVBAYTAlNFMRQwEgYDVQQKEwtBZGRUcnVzdCBBQjEmMCQGA1UECxMdQWRkVHJ1c3QgRXh0 ZXJuYWwgVFRQIE5ldHdvcmsxIjAgBgNVBAMTGUFkZFRydXN0IEV4dGVybmFsIENBIFJvb3Qw HhcNMDUwNjA3MDgwOTEwWhcNMjAwNTMwMTA0ODM4WjCBrjELMAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxCzAJBgNV BAgTAlVUMRcwFQYDVQQHEw5TYWx0IExha2UgQ2l0eTEeMBwGA1UEChMVVGhlIFVTRVJUUlVT VCBOZXR3b3JrMSEwHwYDVQQLExhodHRwOi8vd3d3LnVzZXJ0cnVzdC5jb20xNjA0BgNVBAMT LVVUTi1VU0VSRmlyc3QtQ2xpZW50IEF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uIGFuZCBFbWFpbDCCASIwDQYJ KoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBALI5haTyfatBO2JGN67NwWB1vDll+UoaR6K5zEjM apjVTTUZuaRC5c5J4oovHnzSMQfHTrSDZJ0uKdWiZMSFvYVRNXmkTmiQexx6pJKoF/KYFfKT zMmkMpW7DE8wvZigC4vlbhuiRvp4vKJvq1lepS/Pytptqi/rrKGzaqq3Lmc1i3nhHmmI4uZG zaCl6r4LznY6eg6b6vzaJ1s9cx8i5khhxkzzabGoLhu21DEgLLyCio6kDqXXiUP8FlqvHXHX EVnauocNr/rz4cLwpMVnjNbWVDreCqS6A3ezZcj9HtN0YqoYymiTHqGFfvVHZcv4TVcodNI0 /zC27vZiMBSMLOsCAwEAAaOB9DCB8TAfBgNVHSMEGDAWgBStvZh6NLQm9/rEJlTvA73gJMtU GjAdBgNVHQ4EFgQUiYJnfcSdJnAAS7RQSHzePa4Ebn0wDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgEGMA8GA1Ud EwEB/wQFMAMBAf8wEQYDVR0gBAowCDAGBgRVHSAAMEQGA1UdHwQ9MDswOaA3oDWGM2h0dHA6 Ly9jcmwudXNlcnRydXN0LmNvbS9BZGRUcnVzdEV4dGVybmFsQ0FSb290LmNybDA1BggrBgEF BQcBAQQpMCcwJQYIKwYBBQUHMAGGGWh0dHA6Ly9vY3NwLnVzZXJ0cnVzdC5jb20wDQYJKoZI hvcNAQEFBQADggEBAAG8nONjKLDzMQHC33vdYqABnSMxD5ySc1NR6h9M+tafxMovZ354Mw90 FrmRh5H1iib6ZHAA2B75CwRiUIeTgdTa9SPbNLuFVrRwNG54gzcehRzFERWSX4cXvaxq/fHC 0cyJX7F88D5R8jXzfOxgmGs6K+Dv37N9huu1G/Vb7KJ8mBPXAFC50S1z3gN4dOEFhTFey5q5 nZTGuZQ3dXLcRPtn6PD6JR5Sp9ol6UfgoMc8oE6xCjb7d0if75eK+7T+45QUqIO8XC0/0mBx YO7CcYIM6Yg249ogtKOgbKqWS7iAjnXKSQf2OxS639wF2Z/b4LLmTaB4JufnLW5/X8YeiBUw ggQ2MIIDHqADAgECAgEBMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMG8xCzAJBgNVBAYTAlNFMRQwEgYDVQQK EwtBZGRUcnVzdCBBQjEmMCQGA1UECxMdQWRkVHJ1c3QgRXh0ZXJuYWwgVFRQIE5ldHdvcmsx IjAgBgNVBAMTGUFkZFRydXN0IEV4dGVybmFsIENBIFJvb3QwHhcNMDAwNTMwMTA0ODM4WhcN MjAwNTMwMTA0ODM4WjBvMQswCQYDVQQGEwJTRTEUMBIGA1UEChMLQWRkVHJ1c3QgQUIxJjAk BgNVBAsTHUFkZFRydXN0IEV4dGVybmFsIFRUUCBOZXR3b3JrMSIwIAYDVQQDExlBZGRUcnVz dCBFeHRlcm5hbCBDQSBSb290MIIBIjANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQEFAAOCAQ8AMIIBCgKCAQEAt/ca M+byAAQtOeBOW+0fvGwPzbX6I7bO3psRM5ekKUx9k5+9SryT7QMa44/P5W1QWtaXKZRagLBJ etsulf24yr83OC0ePpFBrXBWx/BPP+gynnTKyJBU6cZfD3idmkA8Dqxhql4Uj56HoWpQ3Nea Tq8Fs6ZxlJxxs1BgCscTnTgHhgKo6ahpJhiQq0ywTyOrOk+E2N/On+Fpb7vXQtdrROTHre5t QV9yWnEIN7N5ZaRZoJQ39wAvDcKSctrQOHLbFKhFxF0qfbe01sTurM0TRLfJK91DACX6Yblp algjEbenM49WdVn1zSnXRrcKK2W200JvFbK4e/vv6V1T1TRaJwIDAQABo4HcMIHZMB0GA1Ud DgQWBBStvZh6NLQm9/rEJlTvA73gJMtUGjALBgNVHQ8EBAMCAQYwDwYDVR0TAQH/BAUwAwEB /zCBmQYDVR0jBIGRMIGOgBStvZh6NLQm9/rEJlTvA73gJMtUGqFzpHEwbzELMAkGA1UEBhMC U0UxFDASBgNVBAoTC0FkZFRydXN0IEFCMSYwJAYDVQQLEx1BZGRUcnVzdCBFeHRlcm5hbCBU VFAgTmV0d29yazEiMCAGA1UEAxMZQWRkVHJ1c3QgRXh0ZXJuYWwgQ0EgUm9vdIIBATANBgkq hkiG9w0BAQUFAAOCAQEAsJvghSXC1iPiD5YGkp1BmJzZhHmB2R5bFAcjNmWPsNh3u6xBbEdg g1Gw+TI95/z2JhPHgBalv1r8h894eYkhmuJMBwqGNbzy3lHE0pa33H5O7nD9HDnrDAJRFC2O vRbgwd9Gdeckrez0QrSFk3AQZ7qdBjVKGNMresxRQqF6Y9Hmu6HFK8I2vhMN5r1jfnl7pwkN QKtq3Y+Kw/b2jBpCBVHURfWfp2IhaBUgQzyZ53y9JNipkRdziD9WGzE4GLRxD5rNyA6eji4b 4YyYg8sfMfFETMYEc0l2YA/H+L0XgGsu6cxMDlqaeQ8gCi7VnmMmHlWSlNiCF1p70LzHj06G BDGCAjAwggIsAgEBMIGpMIGTMQswCQYDVQQGEwJHQjEbMBkGA1UECBMSR3JlYXRlciBNYW5j aGVzdGVyMRAwDgYDVQQHEwdTYWxmb3JkMRowGAYDVQQKExFDT01PRE8gQ0EgTGltaXRlZDE5 MDcGA1UEAxMwQ09NT0RPIENsaWVudCBBdXRoZW50aWNhdGlvbiBhbmQgU2VjdXJlIEVtYWls IENBAhEAzuhISIgzOwSitfbc2LN4WDAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoF0wIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFDCm yrpXiCBt6MNXPLOktBNNFR/sMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcN AQkFMQ8XDTEyMDkyNTEyNDA0MlowDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQAEggEAnoVDAmHFfAQ82F0aY1eD tC+10die83kN5bX18t2VNhC5sZ7IUfJqj2IBXUv6pDxyH7Lm0Twyi0VFPO0K/ib8rVlvGcwB h8mLhWdmxRnosK/7GqWCd4k0zURKyISr1I/LfK3ylNciITVnP8qshqy2PNPjhgu3vqTlt+SK D8zCGdlMqZmljW+jVvs6jxtRyiyrNdhPAGwUAVXpyypR0ExQDgQem5ip7Qcg82yuSDAt2wKI yS0jJilZ+qgdN8tZ8khIyg97XV8UcgJ+DlANQ0seVg+0N+6x3Agov1OC7bu9SS+smn2J9P47 LMcEjB6OGuV6sHUAnvOtbW3jZ0IU9phFdQ== --B_3431407243_37124-- From bingxuere@gmail.com Tue Sep 25 06:10:26 2012 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 4DCD521F84AE for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 06:10:26 -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 WvqeN2i5lZQL for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 06:10:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-f172.google.com (mail-ie0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7782D21F884F for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 06:10:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iec9 with SMTP id 9so15254695iec.31 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 06:10:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=1+6Vp0jhXHyoYPeAMrPMuvZM9aeITiCHKGglQQ1mBE4=; b=Ee2WVeYHSJhdV1jipJfaDVRty2bCV2F6fYVVaEDZyqrXrigMWkn7H16+t9e3vFWmDp ITk/Q+mL5BMY6tZ3ESz/cvLznbs7GzOL31numyUVuAX9TLZm1dzl801UD3gBbeVbHt+j +cEb896dd16dPcyNMSALiivI3shi3R667seiqWGT5rHJ5+pSanzJgp+emXD/DBcYDNSH FYyjDCsVODJREbIukFyWMwctOW2aD6dCmKM9p4NEOFEEuXzxhG/eSx4YQ59qVOnBm1ft LQAOvzJnyJzD9j4jpvlfGOHS6ibX0NrMzNpXuoPIBaPI7EbTZ8YypJhdRqYfi1Wh1Htp lERg== Received: by 10.50.158.169 with SMTP id wv9mr8113485igb.25.1348578624906; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 06:10:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.64.76.200 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 06:09:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <506136E6.6020100@ericsson.com> References: <506136E6.6020100@ericsson.com> From: Qiong Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 21:09:44 +0800 Message-ID: To: Suresh Krishnan Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae93404bde3a3e204ca866dc4 Cc: Softwires WG Subject: Re: [Softwires] Confirming way forward with MAP-T and 4rd 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, 25 Sep 2012 13:10:26 -0000 --14dae93404bde3a3e204ca866dc4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Support for both. Best wishes Qiong On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Suresh Krishnan < suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> wrote: > Hi all, > During the softwire WG meeting at IETF84 a series of questions* to > determine the preferred solution in the meeting room indicated that the > sense of the room was in favor of MAP-E as the basis for the proposed > standard stateless solution. There was also general agreement in the > room to continue working on MAP-T and 4rd as experimental/informational > specifications. After the meeting, there has also been some uncertainty > as to the order in which the different drafts would progress from the wg, > > This call is being initiated to confirm two things: > > a) whether there is WG consensus towards continuing working on MAP-T and > 4rd as experimental documents. > b) whether there is WG consensus that MAP-E should be progressed to > working group last call & IESG review before MAP-T and 4rd.** > > Please state whether or not you're in favor of each of these decisions > by replying to this email. If you are not in favor, please also > (re)state your objections in your response. > > The call will complete at midnight EDT on 2012-10-05. > > Regards > Suresh & Yong > > * Questions are available at > > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-softwire-15.pdf > > ** Note that work on MAP-T and 4rd can proceed in parallel with MAP-E > and we are not aiming to freeze work on these drafts. They just will not > be progressed from the WG before MAP-E is progressed. This is to ensure > that the drafts do not end up competing for the available (finite) > review cycles. > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > -- ============================================== Qiong Sun China Telecom Beijing Research Institude Open source code: lightweight 4over6: *http://sourceforge.net/projects/laft6/* PCP-natcoord:* http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcpportsetdemo/ * =============================================== --14dae93404bde3a3e204ca866dc4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Support for both.

Best wishes
Qiong

On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Suresh Krishnan &l= t;suresh.= krishnan@ericsson.com> wrote:
Hi all,
=C2=A0 During the softwire WG meeting at IETF84 a series of questions* to determine the preferred solution in the meeting room indicated that the
sense of the room was in favor of MAP-E as the basis for the proposed
standard stateless solution. There was also general agreement in the
room to continue working on MAP-T and 4rd as experimental/informational
specifications. After the meeting, there has also been some uncertainty
as to the order in which the different drafts would progress from the wg,
This call is being initiated to confirm two things:

a) whether there is WG consensus towards continuing working on MAP-T and 4rd as experimental documents.
b) whether there is WG consensus that MAP-E should be progressed to
working group last call & IESG review before MAP-T and 4rd.**

Please state whether or not you're in favor of each of these decisions<= br> by replying to this email. If you are not in favor, please also
(re)state your objections in your response.

The call will complete at midnight EDT on 2012-10-05.

Regards
Suresh & Yong

* Questions are available at

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-= softwire-15.pdf

** Note that work on MAP-T and 4rd can proceed in parallel with MAP-E
and we are not aiming to freeze work on these drafts. They just will not be progressed from the WG before MAP-E is progressed. This is to ensure
that the drafts do not end up competing for the available (finite)
review cycles.
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires



--
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Qiong Sun
China Telecom Be= ijing Research Institude


Open source code:
lightweight 4over6= : h= ttp://sourceforge.net/projects/laft6/
PCP-natcoord: http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcpportsetdemo/
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

--14dae93404bde3a3e204ca866dc4-- From Bill.Armstrong@chartercom.com Tue Sep 25 07:32:13 2012 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 EF1BB21F892D for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 07:32:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] 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 3pQA99qupv7G for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 07:32:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.chartercom.com (mail.chartercom.com [24.217.29.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3AF721F84EC for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 07:32:05 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,483,1344229200"; d="scan'208";a="19916708" Received: from unknown (HELO KSTLMEXHTP02.CORP.CHARTERCOM.COM) ([192.168.31.32]) by mail.chartercom.com with ESMTP; 25 Sep 2012 09:26:21 -0500 Received: from KSTLMEXCP02MBX.CORP.CHARTERCOM.COM ([192.168.31.13]) by KSTLMEXHTP02.CORP.CHARTERCOM.COM ([192.168.31.32]) with mapi; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:31:44 -0500 From: "Armstrong, Bill R" To: Softwires WG Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 09:31:41 -0500 Thread-Topic: [Softwires] Way forward with MAP-T and 4rd Thread-Index: Ac2a2J49/3Y6CFRcRjSH3+otlJLg4wAUSMLQ Message-ID: <1DB5A12D98EB024FA4A9D0355029655A0189A859A0@KSTLMEXCP02MBX.CORP.CHARTERCOM.COM> References: <506136D3.1080700@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <506136D3.1080700@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" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Softwires] Way forward with MAP-T and 4rd 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, 25 Sep 2012 14:32:13 -0000 I am in support of both. -Bill -----Original Message----- From: softwires-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] On Beh= alf Of Suresh Krishnan Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 11:45 PM To: Softwires WG Subject: [Softwires] Way forward with MAP-T and 4rd Hi all, During the softwire WG meeting at IETF84 a series of questions* to determ= ine the preferred solution in the meeting room indicated that the sense of = the room was in favor of MAP-E as the basis for the proposed standard state= less solution. There was also general agreement in the room to continue wor= king on MAP-T and 4rd as experimental/informational specifications. After t= he meeting, there has also been some uncertainty as to the order in which t= he different drafts would progress from the wg, This call is being initiated to confirm two things: a) whether there is WG consensus towards continuing working on MAP-T and 4r= d as experimental documents. b) whether there is WG consensus that MAP-E should be progressed to working= group last call & IESG review before MAP-T and 4rd.** Please state whether or not you're in favor of each of these decisions by r= eplying to this email. If you are not in favor, please also (re)state your = objections in your response. The call will complete at midnight EDT on 2012-10-05. Regards Suresh & Yong * Questions are available at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-softwire-15.pdf ** Note that work on MAP-T and 4rd can proceed in parallel with MAP-E and w= e are not aiming to freeze work on these drafts. They just will not be prog= ressed from the WG before MAP-E is progressed. This is to ensure that the d= rafts do not end up competing for the available (finite) review cycles. _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires E-MAIL CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: = The contents of this e-mail message and any attachments are intended solely= for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or legally privilege= d information. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or if = this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert t= he sender by reply e-mail and then delete this message and any attachments.= If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use, diss= emination, distribution, copying, or storage of this message or any attachm= ent is strictly prohibited. From sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.com Tue Sep 25 07:39:30 2012 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 71A3121F862B for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 07:39:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.845 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.845 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, 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 UPMzb7V62RPv for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 07:39:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA9A321F87B2 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 07:39:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by pbbro8 with SMTP id ro8so220304pbb.31 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 07:39:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:reply-to:subject:references:x-priority:x-guid:x-mailer :mime-version:message-id:content-type; bh=lQY8RiZORnJBAB9NTNmtFy0FbZq4T5adDvGh6bOZcmY=; b=XIfemGGKQyoLyeUmtY6qopDXZk79vhwoIAK1oY5jb4v5vMastoNR6E4/DFO0J+fZPe 0V2urYYm1wLrca6BrND89+TKUj+CKOeGkR5cQENrkpus8gvW8vJmORRQDxC1ktqKcxxR iK+tVxLqmFk4PyAAJf9YQuYxJ1swj14tJK+udX3KnhNzT+sAibSQpi30yHJLxMstsuRI sv3UxZ8w+zR2ewjA4WNrifHCsD8kf2W8B+6dEmonrL41hQ799U92Qxdz/NR9EO1GclUb 43sGuM85E09ti7oVzn9vtUVzz1OEpAL8VyyFJo6fsRDFv1mgtXP8glY5e/RDqipPyB4w LIZQ== Received: by 10.68.203.195 with SMTP id ks3mr46519313pbc.79.1348583969673; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 07:39:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sunqi ([124.127.207.137]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id rz10sm428432pbc.32.2012.09.25.07.39.25 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 25 Sep 2012 07:39:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 22:39:19 +0800 From: "Qi Sun" To: "Suresh Krishnan" , "softwires WG" References: <506136E6.6020100@ericsson.com> X-Priority: 3 X-GUID: E3CDC6F1-7828-4195-AA8D-38F286B008AC X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.0.1.83[cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <201209252233212982931@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart813107460312_=----" Subject: Re: [Softwires] Confirming way forward with MAP-T and 4rd X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: "sunqi.csnet.thu" List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:39:30 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_001_NextPart813107460312_=---- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 RGVhciBhbGwsDQoNCkknbSBpbiBmYXZvciBvZiBib3RoLg0KDQpCZXN0IFJlZ2FyZHMhDQoNCg0K DQoNClFpIFN1bg0KDQpGcm9tOiBTdXJlc2ggS3Jpc2huYW4NCkRhdGU6IDIwMTItMDktMjUgMTI6 NDUNClRvOiBTb2Z0d2lyZXMgV0cNClN1YmplY3Q6IFtTb2Z0d2lyZXNdIENvbmZpcm1pbmcgd2F5 IGZvcndhcmQgd2l0aCBNQVAtVCBhbmQgNHJkDQpIaSBhbGwsDQogIER1cmluZyB0aGUgc29mdHdp cmUgV0cgbWVldGluZyBhdCBJRVRGODQgYSBzZXJpZXMgb2YgcXVlc3Rpb25zKiB0bw0KZGV0ZXJt aW5lIHRoZSBwcmVmZXJyZWQgc29sdXRpb24gaW4gdGhlIG1lZXRpbmcgcm9vbSBpbmRpY2F0ZWQg dGhhdCB0aGUNCnNlbnNlIG9mIHRoZSByb29tIHdhcyBpbiBmYXZvciBvZiBNQVAtRSBhcyB0aGUg YmFzaXMgZm9yIHRoZSBwcm9wb3NlZA0Kc3RhbmRhcmQgc3RhdGVsZXNzIHNvbHV0aW9uLiBUaGVy ZSB3YXMgYWxzbyBnZW5lcmFsIGFncmVlbWVudCBpbiB0aGUNCnJvb20gdG8gY29udGludWUgd29y a2luZyBvbiBNQVAtVCBhbmQgNHJkIGFzIGV4cGVyaW1lbnRhbC9pbmZvcm1hdGlvbmFsDQpzcGVj aWZpY2F0aW9ucy4gQWZ0ZXIgdGhlIG1lZXRpbmcsIHRoZXJlIGhhcyBhbHNvIGJlZW4gc29tZSB1 bmNlcnRhaW50eQ0KYXMgdG8gdGhlIG9yZGVyIGluIHdoaWNoIHRoZSBkaWZmZXJlbnQgZHJhZnRz IHdvdWxkIHByb2dyZXNzIGZyb20gdGhlIHdnLA0KDQpUaGlzIGNhbGwgaXMgYmVpbmcgaW5pdGlh dGVkIHRvIGNvbmZpcm0gdHdvIHRoaW5nczoNCg0KYSkgd2hldGhlciB0aGVyZSBpcyBXRyBjb25z ZW5zdXMgdG93YXJkcyBjb250aW51aW5nIHdvcmtpbmcgb24gTUFQLVQgYW5kDQo0cmQgYXMgZXhw ZXJpbWVudGFsIGRvY3VtZW50cy4NCmIpIHdoZXRoZXIgdGhlcmUgaXMgV0cgY29uc2Vuc3VzIHRo YXQgTUFQLUUgc2hvdWxkIGJlIHByb2dyZXNzZWQgdG8NCndvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAgbGFzdCBjYWxs ICYgSUVTRyByZXZpZXcgYmVmb3JlIE1BUC1UIGFuZCA0cmQuKioNCg0KUGxlYXNlIHN0YXRlIHdo ZXRoZXIgb3Igbm90IHlvdSdyZSBpbiBmYXZvciBvZiBlYWNoIG9mIHRoZXNlIGRlY2lzaW9ucw0K YnkgcmVwbHlpbmcgdG8gdGhpcyBlbWFpbC4gSWYgeW91IGFyZSBub3QgaW4gZmF2b3IsIHBsZWFz ZSBhbHNvDQoocmUpc3RhdGUgeW91ciBvYmplY3Rpb25zIGluIHlvdXIgcmVzcG9uc2UuDQoNClRo ZSBjYWxsIHdpbGwgY29tcGxldGUgYXQgbWlkbmlnaHQgRURUIG9uIDIwMTItMTAtMDUuDQoNClJl Z2FyZHMNClN1cmVzaCAmIFlvbmcNCg0KKiBRdWVzdGlvbnMgYXJlIGF2YWlsYWJsZSBhdA0KDQpo dHRwOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL3Byb2NlZWRpbmdzLzg0L3NsaWRlcy9zbGlkZXMtODQtc29mdHdp cmUtMTUucGRmDQoNCioqIE5vdGUgdGhhdCB3b3JrIG9uIE1BUC1UIGFuZCA0cmQgY2FuIHByb2Nl ZWQgaW4gcGFyYWxsZWwgd2l0aCBNQVAtRQ0KYW5kIHdlIGFyZSBub3QgYWltaW5nIHRvIGZyZWV6 ZSB3b3JrIG9uIHRoZXNlIGRyYWZ0cy4gVGhleSBqdXN0IHdpbGwgbm90DQpiZSBwcm9ncmVzc2Vk IGZyb20gdGhlIFdHIGJlZm9yZSBNQVAtRSBpcyBwcm9ncmVzc2VkLiBUaGlzIGlzIHRvIGVuc3Vy ZQ0KdGhhdCB0aGUgZHJhZnRzIGRvIG5vdCBlbmQgdXAgY29tcGV0aW5nIGZvciB0aGUgYXZhaWxh YmxlIChmaW5pdGUpDQpyZXZpZXcgY3ljbGVzLg0KX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NClNvZnR3aXJlcyBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNClNvZnR3aXJlc0Bp ZXRmLm9yZw0KaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9zb2Z0d2lyZXM= ------=_001_NextPart813107460312_=---- Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear all,
 
I'm in favor of both.
 
Best Regards!
 
Qi Sun
 
Date: 2012-09-25 12:45
Subject: [Softwires] Confirming way forward with MAP-T an= d=20 4rd
Hi all,
  During the softwire WG meeting a= t IETF84 a series of questions* to
determine the preferred solution in the = ;meeting room indicated that the
sense of the room was in favor of&= nbsp;MAP-E as the basis for the proposed
standard stateless solution. There was also&= nbsp;general agreement in the
room to continue working on MAP-T and&n= bsp;4rd as experimental/informational
specifications. After the meeting, there has=  also been some uncertainty
as to the order in which the diffe= rent drafts would progress from the wg,
 
This call is being initiated to confirm=  two things:
 
a) whether there is WG consensus toward= s continuing working on MAP-T and
4rd as experimental documents.
b) whether there is WG consensus that&n= bsp;MAP-E should be progressed to
working group last call & IESG revi= ew before MAP-T and 4rd.**
 
Please state whether or not you're in&n= bsp;favor of each of these decisions
by replying to this email. If you = are not in favor, please also
(re)state your objections in your response.<= /DIV>
 
The call will complete at midnight EDT&= nbsp;on 2012-10-05.
 
Regards
Suresh & Yong
 
* Questions are available at
 
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-softwire-15.pdf
 
** Note that work on MAP-T and 4rd=  can proceed in parallel with MAP-E
and we are not aiming to freeze wo= rk on these drafts. They just will not<= /DIV>
be progressed from the WG before MAP-E&= nbsp;is progressed. This is to ensure
that the drafts do not end up comp= eting for the available (finite)
review cycles.
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
------=_001_NextPart813107460312_=------ From roberta.maglione@telecomitalia.it Tue Sep 25 08:00:12 2012 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 B178D21F8904 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 08:00:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.254 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.254 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.465, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, 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 Oc3Dn+e1JRFn for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 08:00:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from GRFEDG701BA020.telecomitalia.it (grfedg701ba020.telecomitalia.it [156.54.233.200]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6C8221F8868 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 08:00:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from GRFHUB702BA020.griffon.local (10.188.101.112) by GRFEDG701BA020.telecomitalia.it (10.188.45.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.245.1; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:00:05 +0200 Received: from GRFMBX704BA020.griffon.local ([10.188.101.15]) by GRFHUB702BA020.griffon.local ([10.188.101.112]) with mapi; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:00:03 +0200 From: Maglione Roberta To: 'Suresh Krishnan' , Softwires WG Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 17:00:03 +0200 Thread-Topic: [Softwires] Confirming way forward with MAP-T and 4rd Thread-Index: Ac2a2Kc6HemZWyYqTWC0b+ax0LINnAAVcNog Message-ID: <282BBE8A501E1F4DA9C775F964BB21FE519702F203@GRFMBX704BA020.griffon.local> References: <506136E6.6020100@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <506136E6.6020100@ericsson.com> Accept-Language: en-US, it-IT Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, it-IT x-ti-disclaimer: Disclaimer1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Softwires] Confirming way forward with MAP-T and 4rd 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, 25 Sep 2012 15:00:12 -0000 I am in favor of both. Regards, Roberta -----Original Message----- From: softwires-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] On Beh= alf Of Suresh Krishnan Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 6:45 AM To: Softwires WG Subject: [Softwires] Confirming way forward with MAP-T and 4rd Hi all, During the softwire WG meeting at IETF84 a series of questions* to determine the preferred solution in the meeting room indicated that the sense of the room was in favor of MAP-E as the basis for the proposed standard stateless solution. There was also general agreement in the room to continue working on MAP-T and 4rd as experimental/informational specifications. After the meeting, there has also been some uncertainty as to the order in which the different drafts would progress from the wg, This call is being initiated to confirm two things: a) whether there is WG consensus towards continuing working on MAP-T and 4rd as experimental documents. b) whether there is WG consensus that MAP-E should be progressed to working group last call & IESG review before MAP-T and 4rd.** Please state whether or not you're in favor of each of these decisions by replying to this email. If you are not in favor, please also (re)state your objections in your response. The call will complete at midnight EDT on 2012-10-05. Regards Suresh & Yong * Questions are available at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-softwire-15.pdf ** Note that work on MAP-T and 4rd can proceed in parallel with MAP-E and we are not aiming to freeze work on these drafts. They just will not be progressed from the WG before MAP-E is progressed. This is to ensure that the drafts do not end up competing for the available (finite) review cycles. _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle per= sone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dall= a conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abb= iate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di dar= ne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione= , Grazie. This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged = information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, pri= nting or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended r= ecipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sen= der by return e-mail, Thanks. From despres.remi@laposte.net Tue Sep 25 10:09:46 2012 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 3CB671F0CC6 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:09:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.531 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.531 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.418, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] 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 mv50eN5Eaetd for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:09:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp25.services.sfr.fr (smtp25.services.sfr.fr [93.17.128.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24D951F0C82 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:09:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from filter.sfr.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by msfrf2502.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 406627000174; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 19:09:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.0.21] (per92-10-88-166-221-144.fbx.proxad.net [88.166.221.144]) by msfrf2502.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id F13B7700006E; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 19:09:42 +0200 (CEST) X-SFR-UUID: 20120925170942988.F13B7700006E@msfrf2502.sfr.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9mi_Despr=E9s?= In-Reply-To: <506136D3.1080700@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 19:09:42 +0200 Message-Id: <7720A221-98AC-405A-B665-764B32672ADA@laposte.net> References: <506136D3.1080700@ericsson.com> To: Suresh Krishnan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Softwires WG Subject: Re: [Softwires] Way forward with MAP-T and 4rd 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, 25 Sep 2012 17:09:46 -0000 Hi, Suresh, - Confirmed support for a) - Agreement to b), with a caveat: =20 . Permitting WG last call for either or both of 4rd and MAP-T as soon = as ready would have been preferred. (Stabilizing asap an experimental = specification is useful to ensure compatibility of experiments.)=20 . This can hopefully be done WITHIN the WG, even if not progressed = "from the WG" yet. Best regards, RD =20 2012-09-25 06:45, Suresh Krishnan : > Hi all, > During the softwire WG meeting at IETF84 a series of questions* to > determine the preferred solution in the meeting room indicated that = the > sense of the room was in favor of MAP-E as the basis for the proposed > standard stateless solution. There was also general agreement in the > room to continue working on MAP-T and 4rd as = experimental/informational > specifications. After the meeting, there has also been some = uncertainty > as to the order in which the different drafts would progress from the = wg, >=20 > This call is being initiated to confirm two things: >=20 > a) whether there is WG consensus towards continuing working on MAP-T = and > 4rd as experimental documents. > b) whether there is WG consensus that MAP-E should be progressed to > working group last call & IESG review before MAP-T and 4rd.** >=20 > Please state whether or not you're in favor of each of these decisions > by replying to this email. If you are not in favor, please also > (re)state your objections in your response. >=20 > The call will complete at midnight EDT on 2012-10-05. >=20 > Regards > Suresh & Yong >=20 > * Questions are available at >=20 > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-softwire-15.pdf >=20 > ** Note that work on MAP-T and 4rd can proceed in parallel with MAP-E > and we are not aiming to freeze work on these drafts. They just will = not > be progressed from the WG before MAP-E is progressed. This is to = ensure > that the drafts do not end up competing for the available (finite) > review cycles. Stabilizing an experimental specification WITHIN the WG remains useful = to ensure compatibility of experiments in progress, even if not yet = progressed FROM the WG. > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires From leo.liubing@huawei.com Tue Sep 25 19:15:21 2012 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 287761F0C51 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 19:15:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 5ID2bxZMFDBN for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 19:15:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 327021F0425 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 19:15:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AKA25621; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 02:15:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 03:14:04 +0100 Received: from SZXEML410-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.137) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 03:14:54 +0100 Received: from SZXEML509-MBS.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.53]) by szxeml410-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.137]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 10:14:46 +0800 From: "Liubing (Leo)" To: Suresh Krishnan , Softwires WG Thread-Topic: [Softwires] Confirming way forward with MAP-T and 4rd Thread-Index: AQHNmtincGRUfxwpo0+7c1vFjD02uZeb475A Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 02:14:45 +0000 Message-ID: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F4529357EBE@szxeml509-mbs> References: <506136E6.6020100@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <506136E6.6020100@ericsson.com> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.99.42] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: Re: [Softwires] Confirming way forward with MAP-T and 4rd 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, 26 Sep 2012 02:15:21 -0000 Hi, Chairs I support both. B.R. Bing > -----Original Message----- > From: softwires-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Suresh Krishnan > Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 12:45 PM > To: Softwires WG > Subject: [Softwires] Confirming way forward with MAP-T and 4rd >=20 > Hi all, > During the softwire WG meeting at IETF84 a series of questions* to > determine the preferred solution in the meeting room indicated that the > sense of the room was in favor of MAP-E as the basis for the proposed > standard stateless solution. There was also general agreement in the > room to continue working on MAP-T and 4rd as experimental/informational > specifications. After the meeting, there has also been some uncertainty > as to the order in which the different drafts would progress from the wg, >=20 > This call is being initiated to confirm two things: >=20 > a) whether there is WG consensus towards continuing working on MAP-T and > 4rd as experimental documents. > b) whether there is WG consensus that MAP-E should be progressed to > working group last call & IESG review before MAP-T and 4rd.** >=20 > Please state whether or not you're in favor of each of these decisions > by replying to this email. If you are not in favor, please also > (re)state your objections in your response. >=20 > The call will complete at midnight EDT on 2012-10-05. >=20 > Regards > Suresh & Yong >=20 > * Questions are available at >=20 > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-softwire-15.pdf >=20 > ** Note that work on MAP-T and 4rd can proceed in parallel with MAP-E > and we are not aiming to freeze work on these drafts. They just will not > be progressed from the WG before MAP-E is progressed. This is to ensure > that the drafts do not end up competing for the available (finite) > review cycles. > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires From Tetsuya.Murakami@ipinfusion.com Tue Sep 25 19:39:52 2012 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 B1E911F0C51 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 19:39:52 -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 ScL9ea3IKC9E for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 19:39:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ch1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (ch1ehsobe001.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.181.181]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 102A31F0C95 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 19:39:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail263-ch1-R.bigfish.com (10.43.68.226) by CH1EHSOBE014.bigfish.com (10.43.70.64) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 02:39:49 +0000 Received: from mail263-ch1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail263-ch1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2569B900083; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 02:39:49 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.236.101; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:BY2PRD0510HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: -27 X-BigFish: PS-27(zzbb2dI98dI1432I4015I14ffId6f1izz1202h1d1ah1d2ahzz1033IL17326ah8275dh5eeeKz2fh2a8h668h839h944hd25he5bhf0ah107ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1155h) Received-SPF: pass (mail263-ch1: domain of ipinfusion.com designates 157.56.236.101 as permitted sender) client-ip=157.56.236.101; envelope-from=Tetsuya.Murakami@ipinfusion.com; helo=BY2PRD0510HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ; .outlook.com ; Received: from mail263-ch1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail263-ch1 (MessageSwitch) id 1348627186379007_25226; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 02:39:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from CH1EHSMHS042.bigfish.com (snatpool1.int.messaging.microsoft.com [10.43.68.242]) by mail263-ch1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D93A1700045; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 02:39:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from BY2PRD0510HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.236.101) by CH1EHSMHS042.bigfish.com (10.43.69.251) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 02:39:45 +0000 Received: from BY2PRD0510MB388.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.5.226]) by BY2PRD0510HT004.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.84.39]) with mapi id 14.16.0190.008; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 02:39:44 +0000 From: Tetsuya Murakami To: Suresh Krishnan Thread-Topic: [Softwires] Confirming way forward with MAP-T and 4rd Thread-Index: AQHNm5AvRqtnOnf+kUq0iVN1/2qMWg== Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 02:39:43 +0000 Message-ID: References: <506136E6.6020100@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <506136E6.6020100@ericsson.com> Accept-Language: ja-JP, en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.255.150.4] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2CCD2FFB102F124C8A8F4FA805FDA7E0@namprd05.prod.outlook.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: ipinfusion.com Cc: Softwires WG Subject: Re: [Softwires] Confirming way forward with MAP-T and 4rd 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, 26 Sep 2012 02:39:52 -0000 Hi Suresh, I am in favor of both. Thanks, Tetsuya On 2012/09/24, at 21:45, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > Hi all, > During the softwire WG meeting at IETF84 a series of questions* to > determine the preferred solution in the meeting room indicated that the > sense of the room was in favor of MAP-E as the basis for the proposed > standard stateless solution. There was also general agreement in the > room to continue working on MAP-T and 4rd as experimental/informational > specifications. After the meeting, there has also been some uncertainty > as to the order in which the different drafts would progress from the wg, >=20 > This call is being initiated to confirm two things: >=20 > a) whether there is WG consensus towards continuing working on MAP-T and > 4rd as experimental documents. > b) whether there is WG consensus that MAP-E should be progressed to > working group last call & IESG review before MAP-T and 4rd.** >=20 > Please state whether or not you're in favor of each of these decisions > by replying to this email. If you are not in favor, please also > (re)state your objections in your response. >=20 > The call will complete at midnight EDT on 2012-10-05. >=20 > Regards > Suresh & Yong >=20 > * Questions are available at >=20 > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-softwire-15.pdf >=20 > ** Note that work on MAP-T and 4rd can proceed in parallel with MAP-E > and we are not aiming to freeze work on these drafts. They just will not > be progressed from the WG before MAP-E is progressed. This is to ensure > that the drafts do not end up competing for the available (finite) > review cycles. > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >=20 From pengwu.thu@gmail.com Tue Sep 25 20:12:10 2012 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 E8A0821F86A4 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 20:12:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.300, 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 mTB8B70r-yWX for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 20:12:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-f172.google.com (mail-vc0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CA5121F8685 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 20:12:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vcbfl11 with SMTP id fl11so55673vcb.31 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 20:12:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=+/OT2xgXOxt8S7FftgbLS4pjzI3avGhFsxeOHWiPACI=; b=gosfl8dYPn2Se8Sf4gyXGztM6ncXZUsPET14XpLi/XZJnNw2mIopvSOjmBf5SjXNrs QwPQwkfvksnETHGcWhymV7tRbixhI5nflmf116Q/xUlNc/q4HwEtXWNwH6jCJ4Sy4RMq uhTs47q0LNb1oGHfRsPWe0eLM9rxojgfBeE0AM4Me1MnPH90MBQ8nMskbLJna/cbwLOT w66x5PsBe0AlbGi/MC/gLyAJAX2x1JsJsFceQLkYK7XEzbJt4fagUH5E6DNFNyWl3or+ eygXfFTAVGDl1d7S+s8THgyHQ6nr1Lc31VeJ1j12n3C7ru4VJm7k2O/nneiqSp2BO3un TgTA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.175.130 with SMTP id ca2mr8310792vdc.112.1348629129708; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 20:12:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.58.35.168 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 20:12:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <50614ED1.80504@ericsson.com> References: <50614ED1.80504@ericsson.com> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 11:12:09 +0800 Message-ID: From: Peng Wu To: Suresh Krishnan Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Softwires WG Subject: Re: [Softwires] Review of draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-03.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, 26 Sep 2012 03:12:11 -0000 Hi Suresh, Thanks for reviewing the draft and provding valuable comments. Answers inline. In general all the issues should be easy to fix. Please expect a new version soon. On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > Hi authors, > I went over this draft to check whether it is ready to advance from > the WG. The latest revision of the draft is highly improved and has > addressed most of the concerns I had on clarity. I do have a few minor > concerns though, and I would like to see them addressed before sending > the draft along the publication process. > > * Introduction > > The draft needs a bit more motivation on why an ISP with a lot of IPv4 > address resources does not simply run dual stack. Sure > > * Section 3 > > 4over6 CE: This section seems to be stating that the 4over6 CE does not > provide IPv6 service to the customer network if it is a CPE. Is this > true? If so, this seems to be wrong and needs to be fixed. You are right, we actually does not restrict that. Will fix this issue > > * Section 4 > > It is not clear how this mechanism "integrates easily" with DS-Lite as > claimed. Can you add a bit more text on how this will be accomplished OK. > * Section 5.1 > > The arrows in the figure are confusing. e.g. what information does the > 4over6 CE provide to the DHCPv6 server. If none, why is the arrow > bidirectional? Suggest making the arrows unidirectional to show the flow > of information. The original thoughts are showing DHCP is a mutliple-step interaction... Will make the direction of the first two arrows as right->left. > > * Section 6 > > Which DHCPv6 option does the 4over6 CE use to get the BR address. Is it > the AFTR-Name option? This needs to be clarified. Yes. We have put a reference to RFC6334 in section 6. Will add the option name in next version > From pengwu.thu@gmail.com Tue Sep 25 20:29:38 2012 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 7092721F85AC for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 20:29:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.399 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.200, 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 WDzM6ucoOYMQ for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 20:29:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-f172.google.com (mail-vc0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9DBA21F8499 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 20:29:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vcbfl11 with SMTP id fl11so66283vcb.31 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 20:29:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=nP2fS53ZNms87p3HHf4q0Y6ZMofmXZju+7XWZnoSvCI=; b=xlT5aKw54wfZ9yqcDp0eRxdBcfV5GYCKQyx2hwAz9mCHq/XtpF/xbv01NwzL/X6PVD gvuQ8C9NJNrhUaQj/noK8UaBAnDfodAqLrk7N/Gm/ai6rxjD128IjErV7auzBs5TrbAh wOY2FtUXbwCOeqpyABYpXE7ezDYYwez15x//iidhGmyiCgipvsTjk9UHzhGgOrFsY3Xe Hq7SggO8ANtPqv8g5LpW2GWYkIJYN+HWflasvYIakqfBdcBsShwfcOF1bQdDAtASaopV TwM6wpIN7gUit0RofhpH2M8VJhX2Abq2BCkOB7NKMcfM7HwnNmfEemMRzTJwUejtr8Vy MP/A== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.221.72 with SMTP id ib8mr9200683vcb.25.1348630177075; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 20:29:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.58.35.168 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 20:29:36 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <506136E6.6020100@ericsson.com> References: <506136E6.6020100@ericsson.com> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 11:29:36 +0800 Message-ID: From: Peng Wu To: Suresh Krishnan Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Softwires WG Subject: Re: [Softwires] Confirming way forward with MAP-T and 4rd 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, 26 Sep 2012 03:29:38 -0000 Hi chairs, I support both. Thanks On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > Hi all, > During the softwire WG meeting at IETF84 a series of questions* to > determine the preferred solution in the meeting room indicated that the > sense of the room was in favor of MAP-E as the basis for the proposed > standard stateless solution. There was also general agreement in the > room to continue working on MAP-T and 4rd as experimental/informational > specifications. After the meeting, there has also been some uncertainty > as to the order in which the different drafts would progress from the wg, > > This call is being initiated to confirm two things: > > a) whether there is WG consensus towards continuing working on MAP-T and > 4rd as experimental documents. > b) whether there is WG consensus that MAP-E should be progressed to > working group last call & IESG review before MAP-T and 4rd.** > > Please state whether or not you're in favor of each of these decisions > by replying to this email. If you are not in favor, please also > (re)state your objections in your response. > > The call will complete at midnight EDT on 2012-10-05. > > Regards > Suresh & Yong > > * Questions are available at > > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-softwire-15.pdf > > ** Note that work on MAP-T and 4rd can proceed in parallel with MAP-E > and we are not aiming to freeze work on these drafts. They just will not > be progressed from the WG before MAP-E is progressed. This is to ensure > that the drafts do not end up competing for the available (finite) > review cycles. > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires From leaf.y.yeh@huawei.com Tue Sep 25 21:17:19 2012 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 EA0E11F0CE5 for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 21:17:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.349 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.250, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] 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 Uf2RF9SkH28g for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 21:17:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB91F1F042B for ; Tue, 25 Sep 2012 21:17:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id ALA97741; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 04:17:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 05:16:04 +0100 Received: from SZXEML437-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.72.61.72) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 05:16:51 +0100 Received: from SZXEML510-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.119]) by szxeml437-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.72.61.72]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Wed, 26 Sep 2012 12:16:46 +0800 From: Leaf yeh To: Softwires WG Thread-Topic: [Softwires] Confirming way forward with MAP-T and 4rd Thread-Index: AQHNmtilJUhch6i2wEG1iEZFIn/FqJeaQpcAgAHDB3A= Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 04:16:46 +0000 Message-ID: References: <506136E6.6020100@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.66.83.152] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: Re: [Softwires] Confirming way forward with MAP-T and 4rd 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, 26 Sep 2012 04:17:19 -0000 +1 for both Best Regards, Leaf From: softwires-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] On Beh= alf Of Wojciech Dec Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 5:22 PM To: Suresh Krishnan Cc: Softwires WG Subject: Re: [Softwires] Confirming way forward with MAP-T and 4rd Hi Suresh, I'm in favour on both things. Thanks, Woj. On 25 September 2012 06:45, Suresh Krishnan = wrote: Hi all, =A0 During the softwire WG meeting at IETF84 a series of questions* to determine the preferred solution in the meeting room indicated that the sense of the room was in favor of MAP-E as the basis for the proposed standard stateless solution. There was also general agreement in the room to continue working on MAP-T and 4rd as experimental/informational specifications. After the meeting, there has also been some uncertainty as to the order in which the different drafts would progress from the wg, This call is being initiated to confirm two things: a) whether there is WG consensus towards continuing working on MAP-T and 4rd as experimental documents. b) whether there is WG consensus that MAP-E should be progressed to working group last call & IESG review before MAP-T and 4rd.** Please state whether or not you're in favor of each of these decisions by replying to this email. If you are not in favor, please also (re)state your objections in your response. The call will complete at midnight EDT on 2012-10-05. Regards Suresh & Yong * Questions are available at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-softwire-15.pdf ** Note that work on MAP-T and 4rd can proceed in parallel with MAP-E and we are not aiming to freeze work on these drafts. They just will not be progressed from the WG before MAP-E is progressed. This is to ensure that the drafts do not end up competing for the available (finite) review cycles. _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires