From zehn.cao@gmail.com Mon Oct 1 06:50:46 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 7D3E811E81AA for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 06:50:46 -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 aOZkBEn67hDK for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 06:50:45 -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 D84F611E81A3 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 06:50:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iec9 with SMTP id 9so14017420iec.31 for ; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 06:50:44 -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=FYxSwvpKdlIvKpi89btnjOM80NrX6XvNDdH/74YF81o=; b=TBaEVmh9lOvKEpc+F20oQmMLyarXQOVbOj3bqArD21RvLD8gXnWWHXfG2EfDASOSoM l67EZ1OFWrkaJ6nTmYcl+6HHb8A5YRz0ttDdgw2V3636RfJKibXiUospUElpkh+B0aI2 HeP3fYvPTs/emXecnGgQWxwwMiFms/Nalau0pZGyt6Pwz0Rr2N5UVjdeRS8H4uwi47zD dOIQDgA9fCu0MFYLhaxU/w/dGprNsi7IsrR/EWo1e6YFWJpXxrvxyM5BLau0ItznfPOL LosxkGqz8jzoJ7nB7rITrjAtszELybZ9uhj+26qmG6gSJykruyzc3if+p2MImIT6D/T4 U4Vg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.163.65 with SMTP id yg1mr4055632igb.64.1349099444453; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 06:50:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.14.35 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 06:50:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <506136E6.6020100@ericsson.com> References: <506136E6.6020100@ericsson.com> Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 21:50:44 +0800 Message-ID: From: Zhen Cao 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: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 13:50:46 -0000 Hi Suresh, I am not in favor of (a), because the problem has been solved by MAP-E and we shall not continue to work on other solutions according to the IETF principle. Best regards, Zhen 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 jan@go6.si Mon Oct 1 12:57:39 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 6540F21F8BA3 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 12:57:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.048 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 8YjBcoYfjtT6 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 12:57:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipv6.go6.si (unknown [212.44.108.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0D4D21F8B94 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 12:57:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jan-mac.local (unknown [91.239.97.98]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jan) by ipv6.go6.si (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7446F22B40D8 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 21:57:35 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <5069F5AE.8040309@go6.si> Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 21:57:34 +0200 From: "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: softwires@ietf.org References: <506136E6.6020100@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <506136E6.6020100@ericsson.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 19:57:39 -0000 On 9/25/12 6:45 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > 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. yes. Agree. (again) :) Cheers, Jan From cx.cernet@gmail.com Mon Oct 1 21:03:48 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 ACCF721F898D for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 21:03:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.932 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.932 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666] 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 SRBlJSixq5U4 for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 21:03:47 -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 865F521F898B for ; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 21:03:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by iec9 with SMTP id 9so15918866iec.31 for ; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 21:03:47 -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=aTYm/mHELJVuLZIIe4pTjmHyb0O7OSoIu+nnmXAps8s=; b=dZqnle4khFRviN3XCv3I6E46TD2J8v4mxkW9yLc5tFjDPJMmP4EZwpR9h5mdZzMqsP V4VFpLazpCEDNvmCfUCtjmk0lpRApK0RpTnUwA+ek0kMPhb9KoJIHhik0NMEXHUTH3DX ul6TT5ynti/3yQKnH4R6sBsVAuFPGNFQ6Z25HqrLO8MKf43n308t06ipJC1JcvqOmd+O 2uMoIsEaEVKYPYf/foM45+uooc68pERLACzNVhbxmREqLQceA8HXE88TdfEvOVfd/9In OUKF3A/71ASdGCY6D0D0jFM4CwbkrhpcptMRvc2+CrcPQpWjJwWM8DLYMscEa54rHL5x 4pCA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.173.7 with SMTP id bg7mr7685027igc.65.1349150627008; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 21:03:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.42.36 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 21:03:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5069F5AE.8040309@go6.si> References: <506136E6.6020100@ericsson.com> <5069F5AE.8040309@go6.si> Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 12:03:46 +0800 Message-ID: From: Congxiao Bao To: "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f838a55df11ec04cb0b9bd1 Cc: softwires@ietf.org 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, 02 Oct 2012 04:03:48 -0000 --e89a8f838a55df11ec04cb0b9bd1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Chairs, I am in favor of both your questions. Congxiao 2012/10/2 Jan Zorz @ go6.si > On 9/25/12 6:45 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > >> 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. >> > > yes. Agree. (again) :) > > Cheers, Jan > > ______________________________**_________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/softwires > --e89a8f838a55df11ec04cb0b9bd1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi=A0 Chairs,
=A0
I am in favor of both your quest= ions.
=A0
Congxiao

2012/10/2 Jan Zorz @ go6.si= <= jan@go6.si>
On 9/25/12 6:45 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
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.

yes. Agree. (again) :)

Cheers, Jan

_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org<= /a>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

--e89a8f838a55df11ec04cb0b9bd1-- From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Tue Oct 2 15:00:06 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 C85C321F8619; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 15:00:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.543 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.543 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.056, 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 mtup8uFikX1K; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 15:00:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A92821F8570; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 15:00:06 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.34 Message-ID: <20121002220006.21511.69945.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 15:00:06 -0700 Cc: softwires@ietf.org Subject: [Softwires] Last Call: (Deployment Considerations for Dual-Stack Lite) to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 22:00:06 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the Softwires WG (softwire) to consider the following document: - 'Deployment Considerations for Dual-Stack Lite' as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-10-16. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document discusses the deployment issues and describes requirements for the deployment and operation of Dual-Stack Lite. This document describes the various deployment considerations and applicability of the Dual-Stack Lite architecture. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-deployment/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-deployment/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. From maxpassion@gmail.com Tue Oct 2 21:17:51 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 8F1C621F865D for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 21:17:51 -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 MHr8kRIWSs4A for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 21:17:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-oa0-f44.google.com (mail-oa0-f44.google.com [209.85.219.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC2F121F8652 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 21:17:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by oagn5 with SMTP id n5so8371919oag.31 for ; Tue, 02 Oct 2012 21:17:50 -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=7pz5bwnxX1cGJdW4q7Ax7zPuHnIgSawJh/Gz1hmkqsc=; b=jlrUlBhiBlGliWMIODGm5OATaB30U7eaKGaIkH7wL3M0VRaW/4eNtrK48dvVpnMlO3 RIpcpmr4y9HrFd4iZL7HsGDcWMQIKw5VIZkdfMB+2KyaEOhxaF+4RcrJEXmf07BYcKyC AfdjwQEL0uzDG1YGR5VanrT1le9WpcwvusWz3c8v+mfeFaGmK5W1D4zmaTxVK0VCj+U+ jQTWKrp7TRAmrWJX9Ghfz2jn0Eq/FTRaBOlLz40XfI6rAKtgmi2BNabkPlZZZqp4BK5y 6eOAI2jt92rdoJnzeL/N3iv9UVPFAe6LiBosakoynMILmt6/uVhKXLgw4RNc5kq0RcWQ QELw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.31.165 with SMTP id b5mr582132oei.58.1349237870260; Tue, 02 Oct 2012 21:17:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.76.162.41 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 21:17:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <506136E6.6020100@ericsson.com> References: <506136E6.6020100@ericsson.com> Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 12:17:50 +0800 Message-ID: From: liu dapeng 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, 03 Oct 2012 04:17:51 -0000 Hi Chairs, I do not aggree with option a). The reason is that there is still no valid scenario exist today for continue to work on MAP-T. The ACL scenario for MAP-T does not make sense for operator's real deployment. We can't work on the solution without problem statement and valid sceanrio. Best Regards, Dapeng 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 > -- ------ Best Regards, Dapeng Liu From roberta.maglione@telecomitalia.it Wed Oct 3 00:28:49 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 053F821F84DD for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 00:28:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.409 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.409 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.310, 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 DJX7Ws5AW9Lp for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 00:28:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from GRFEDG701BA020.telecomitalia.it (grfedg701ba020.telecomitalia.it [156.54.233.200]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0555921F8476 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 00:28:48 -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; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 09:28:42 +0200 Received: from GRFMBX704BA020.griffon.local ([10.188.101.15]) by GRFHUB702BA020.griffon.local ([10.188.101.112]) with mapi; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 09:28:42 +0200 From: Maglione Roberta To: Softwires WG Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 09:28:41 +0200 Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-maglione-softwire-map-t-scenarios-00.txt Thread-Index: Ac2hOAFOOowWIG5cRHOkNewUbbFxywAAHD6w Message-ID: <282BBE8A501E1F4DA9C775F964BB21FE519702F21C@GRFMBX704BA020.griffon.local> 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: [Softwires] FW: New Version Notification for draft-maglione-softwire-map-t-scenarios-00.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, 03 Oct 2012 07:28:49 -0000 Hello, I have just submitted this draft to describe some use cases that would be= nefit from a translation based/MAP-T solution. Your comments are welcome. Thanks Best regards, Roberta -----Original Message----- From: internet-drafts@ietf.org [mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2012 9:24 AM To: Maglione Roberta Cc: wdec@cisco.com Subject: New Version Notification for draft-maglione-softwire-map-t-scenari= os-00.txt A new version of I-D, draft-maglione-softwire-map-t-scenarios-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Roberta Maglione and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-maglione-softwire-map-t-scenarios Revision: 00 Title: Uses cases for MAP-T Creation date: 2012-10-03 WG ID: Individual Submission Number of pages: 8 URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-maglione-softwir= e-map-t-scenarios-00.txt Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-maglione-softwire-ma= p-t-scenarios Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-maglione-softwire-map-t-s= cenarios-00 Abstract: Softwire working group is currently discussing both encapsulation and translation based stateless IPv4/IPv6 solutions in order to be able to provide IPv4 connectivity to customers in an IPv6 only environment. The purpose of this document is to describe some use cases that would take advantage of a translation based solution, by highlighting the operational benefits that a translations based approach would allow. The IETF Secretariat 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 mark@townsley.net Wed Oct 3 02:22:52 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 DB79421F86B8 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 02:22:52 -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 g6E3nrLvuOHR for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 02:22:52 -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 B379C21F86B7 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 02:22:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eekd4 with SMTP id d4so4065409eek.31 for ; Wed, 03 Oct 2012 02:22:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer :x-gm-message-state; bh=+fmizFa68+spXB9kCZ1ucQLNMUtFgP3yOcC2KRcbMQg=; b=jzxxIpjpH32ws3X2AE9DZRxSMI6mPCmhE1M8lmHsmNjnRtTkRTXmC9byDPTSuhvYgg ZNt35S2cniwRFPefY+OK3JuTf7PXQ+x/Rt1pd9XeS0oxPuTs5YwUdzsll4sKXG7N40gD e6xc/oX40nIHptheXvBkMmB+oU2gdqVmZ69hLAbjSTRzwV9X7t6XZp36dT3uYgL+O5pO +A4nvyTOcbEjA0Pc1VgCkTB+xBYI9EHhIRXC56lTpgS/qX3QLhB8RdtcQUTFbVMOWnjh 99z8WlFo3ls0BNMXWKtY9usJkhfoG2IAwVx51Evxd3SPRqVSwDsaaoo898gPbISYX8d4 9OjA== Received: by 10.14.202.131 with SMTP id d3mr1754352eeo.32.1349256170721; Wed, 03 Oct 2012 02:22:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-townsley-8912.cisco.com (64-103-25-233.cisco.com. [64.103.25.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x42sm6199693eel.11.2012.10.03.02.22.41 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 03 Oct 2012 02:22:50 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Mark Townsley In-Reply-To: <506136E6.6020100@ericsson.com> Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 11:22:39 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: References: <506136E6.6020100@ericsson.com> To: Suresh Krishnan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkTQR47iMvgqVYlrhhLA54RbCuVpn2T5cI9T2IY9DR/YHkOs60ckPb28+ce4yUTP+ROVFZK 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, 03 Oct 2012 09:22:53 -0000 On Sep 25, 2012, at 6:45 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. In favor. - Mark > 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 ian.farrer@telekom.de Wed Oct 3 04:56:29 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 EB1E521F86B8 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 04:56:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.249 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XHevg7eLSnQM for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 04:56:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tcmail33.telekom.de (tcmail33.telekom.de [194.25.30.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABD1721F84E6 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 04:56:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from he113657.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.99.17]) by tcmail31.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 03 Oct 2012 13:56:25 +0200 Received: from HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM ([10.134.93.12]) by HE113657.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 13:56:25 +0200 From: To: , Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 13:56:40 +0200 Thread-Topic: [Softwires] Confirming way forward with MAP-T and 4rd Thread-Index: Ac2a2KdzjxFG0QA0QYme2DBnuxkOOwGhVv6g Message-ID: <8A1B81989BCFAE44A22B2B86BF2B7631893D0889DA@HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM> References: <506136E6.6020100@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <506136E6.6020100@ericsson.com> Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE 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: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 11:56:30 -0000 I agree with both. Regards, Ian -----Original Message----- From: softwires-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] On Beh= alf Of Suresh Krishnan Sent: Dienstag, 25. September 2012 06:45 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 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 From moreiras@nic.br Wed Oct 3 07:36:25 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 0C43921F8652 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 07:36:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-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 4PDigvo0T+3T for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 07:36:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.nic.br (mail.cgi.br [IPv6:2001:12ff:0:4::5]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D66821F8615 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 07:36:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2001:12ff:0:5::96] (unknown [IPv6:2001:12ff:0:5::96]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.nic.br (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2DDE92083353 for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 11:36:20 -0300 (BRT) Message-ID: <506C4D63.5050604@nic.br> Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 11:36:19 -0300 From: "Antonio M. Moreiras" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: softwires@ietf.org References: <506136E6.6020100@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <506136E6.6020100@ericsson.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.2 OpenPGP: id=18627EC9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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, 03 Oct 2012 14:36:25 -0000 I agree with both. Moreiras. On 25-09-2012 01:45, 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. From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Wed Oct 3 13:45:57 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 AE3F611E80D3; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 13:45:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.527 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.527 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.072, 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 xm+KDL8WbuTk; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 13:45:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B96BC21F851B; Wed, 3 Oct 2012 13:45:52 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.34 Message-ID: <20121003204552.20319.53064.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 13:45:52 -0700 Cc: softwires@ietf.org Subject: [Softwires] Last Call: (Motivations for Carrier-side Stateless IPv4 over IPv6 Migration Solutions) to Informational RFC X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 20:45:57 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the Softwires WG (softwire) to consider the following document: - 'Motivations for Carrier-side Stateless IPv4 over IPv6 Migration Solutions' as Informational RFC The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-10-17. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract IPv4 service continuity is one of the most pressing problems that must be resolved by Service Providers during the IPv6 transition period - especially after the exhaustion of the public IPv4 address space. Current standardization effort that addresses IPv4 service continuity focuses on stateful mechanisms. This document elaborates on the motivations for the need to undertake a companion effort to specify stateless IPv4 over IPv6 approaches. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. From xing@cernet.edu.cn Thu Oct 4 01:41:22 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 D9ACC21F867E for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 01:41:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 UMu0IqILV2kW for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 01:41:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cernet.edu.cn (mail.cernet.edu.cn [202.112.39.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C197621F8621 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 01:41:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [119.39.248.85]) by centos (Coremail) with SMTP id AQAAf3ALOwMlSm1Q_skAAA--.4210S5; Thu, 04 Oct 2012 16:34:48 +0800 (CST) Message-ID: <506D4AE0.4080709@cernet.edu.cn> Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 16:37:52 +0800 From: Xing Li User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Suresh Krishnan References: <506136D3.1080700@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <506136D3.1080700@ericsson.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-CM-TRANSID: AQAAf3ALOwMlSm1Q_skAAA--.4210S5 X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvJXoW7Wry7tFWkWFy7GrWUCr43Awb_yoW8ArWUpF WfGa1rGF1DtF18twn7Za18J3Wv9FZYyFZ8Xr1rtr18Aas8WFy8tr109w45ZrWUCws5Jrn0 vr45urn8uFn5AFJanT9S1TB71UUUUUUqnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUUDlb7Iv0xC_Cr1lb4IE77IF4wAFF20E14v26r4j6ryUM7CY07I2 0VC2zVCF04k26cxKx2IYs7xG6rWj6s0DM7CIcVAFz4kK6r1j6r18M28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rw A2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_JF4l84ACjcxK6xIIjxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Jr0_ Gr1l84ACjcxK6I8E87Iv67AKxVWUJVW8JwA2z4x0Y4vEx4A2jsIEc7CjxVAFwI0_Gr0_Gr 1UM2AIxVAIcxkEcVAq07x20xvEncxIr21l5I8CrVACY4xI64kE6c02F40Ex7xfMcIj6xII jxv20xvE14v26r1j6r18McIj6I8E87Iv67AKxVWUJVW8JwAm72CE4IkC6x0Yz7v_Jr0_Gr 1lF7xvr2IY64vIr41l42xK82IYc2Ij64vIr41lx2IqxVAqx4xG67AKxVWUJVWUGwC20s02 6x8GjcxK67AKxVWUGVWUWwC2zVAF1VAY17CE14v26r1Y6r17MIIYrxkI7VAKI48JMIIF0x vE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_JF4lIxAIcVC0I7IYx2IY6xkF7I0E14v26r1j6r4UMIIF0xvE 42xK8VAvwI8IcIk0rVW3JVWrJr1lIxAIcVC2z280aVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1lIxAIcVC2z280aV CY1x0267AKxVWUJVW8JbIYCTnIWIevJa73UjIFyTuYvjxU7GYLDUUUU X-CM-SenderInfo: p0lqwqxfhu0vvwohv3gofq/ 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: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 08:41:23 -0000 Hi Chairs, I am in favor of both. Regards, xing Suresh Krishnan 写道: > 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 sarikaya2012@gmail.com Thu Oct 4 08:53:55 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 EC37E21F86A7 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 08:53:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.485 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.485 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.114, 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 eQe3ZMkYJ2dG for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 08:53:55 -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 DD25221F867C for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 08:53:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ie0-f172.google.com with SMTP id 9so1587130iec.31 for ; Thu, 04 Oct 2012 08:53:54 -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=OzAvPP65WVvcSlVNtA2CaGtT7x/U+xgyV+uITU+fxBQ=; b=QlyY3uvjAjrDdPnnPTGAzjN86ZsYelO9T/aSPDsPOLJIDEKL3HpBnnZIqZquuyhFvc r4dyrLmBMaCjFZn8NhmFEYWjNkLuCKPA1L7dszB2hEECJhmdmvfYqexnO5aCOweduqrD Rt8c/HUvLCyNn+yEDFSfkcRD9ishtvRrHkBhbORx9edaft4ABSoQiD5tTit3DjZkjmAe 6p8zFmjxzvJ05XAnfvRByBdHJfDAsYIVf5ehmxHOmZGU0jDIqZV+Rc2x7Bm5DGwupqiH mhM8QuaZ5tBtQo8SbGlJ/HYIJ36C0cssNR+xFo4plo102gr4By0VLIhWcMKXJV73+fVx lEkw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.194.163 with SMTP id hx3mr5797236igc.37.1349366034516; Thu, 04 Oct 2012 08:53:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.85.26 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 08:53:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <506D4AE0.4080709@cernet.edu.cn> References: <506136D3.1080700@ericsson.com> <506D4AE0.4080709@cernet.edu.cn> Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 10:53:54 -0500 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: Suresh Krishnan Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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 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, 04 Oct 2012 15:53:56 -0000 Dear Chairs, I think that your call needs some clarification. First of all, there is no active document that describes MAP-T. I checked Roberta's draft, draft-maglione-softwire-map-t-scenarios-00.txt, she gives no references. Is the intention of this call to put all of MAP-E, MAP-T and 4rd into equal weighting so that the decision can somehow be revisited? My experience with CAPWAP protocol selection that we did in 2006 is that WG continued to work on the selected protocol and developed extensions, MIB, etc. The other candidates became experimental with not much work on them. Regards, Behcet On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 3:37 AM, Xing Li wrote: > Hi Chairs, > > I am in favor of both. > > Regards, > > xing > > Suresh Krishnan =E5=86=99=E9=81=93: > >> 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 From suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com Thu Oct 4 18:16:36 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 CA78A21F84C2 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 18:16:36 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 DOqtWEbL2sam for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 18:16:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53C4A21F84BF for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 18:16:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id q951GWJj031407; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 20:16:34 -0500 Received: from [155.53.229.80] (147.117.20.214) by smtps-am.internal.ericsson.com (147.117.20.178) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.279.1; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 21:16:24 -0400 Message-ID: <506E34E3.1080106@ericsson.com> Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 21:16:19 -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: "sarikaya@ieee.org" References: <506136D3.1080700@ericsson.com> <506D4AE0.4080709@cernet.edu.cn> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Softwires WG , Behcet Sarikaya 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: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 01:16:37 -0000 Hi Behcet, On 10/04/2012 11:53 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > Dear Chairs, > > I think that your call needs some clarification. > > First of all, there is no active document that describes MAP-T. Correct. There is no such draft yet. The idea is to split out the MAP-T pieces of the MAP draft into a separate draft if the wg is in favor of continuing work on MAP-T. > I checked Roberta's draft, > draft-maglione-softwire-map-t-scenarios-00.txt, she gives no > references. > > Is the intention of this call to put all of MAP-E, MAP-T and 4rd into > equal weighting so that the decision can somehow be revisited? No. Not at all. On the contrary we are going with MAP-E as the proposed standard solution. This call is to decide what we want to do with the other two solutions. > > My experience with CAPWAP protocol selection that we did in 2006 is > that WG continued to work on the selected protocol and developed > extensions, MIB, etc. The other candidates became experimental with > not much work on them. MAP-T and 4rd will be progressed as experimental if the wg is in favor of continued work on them. Thanks Suresh From raghuramgangi@gmail.com Thu Oct 4 21:25:03 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 EB2F311E8091 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 21:25:03 -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 jvWkI9l06I+g for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 21:25:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-f44.google.com (mail-pa0-f44.google.com [209.85.220.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D47EF11E8099 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 21:25:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id fb11so1255553pad.31 for ; Thu, 04 Oct 2012 21:24:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:message-id:cc:x-mailer:from:subject:date:to; bh=xWVx/VO1w8DecuOJk2c7vAV30/VvJahXHZ4LtadAQVY=; b=j1d0Vi01Qw2Smv0MgfDlvDXWvadNq/Q8zqtQhiTWSWDCUtkpim4lB8cHo3+62z0Be8 +fdgNpHdL5GmwbIa9Smci2IV0nL4zU2RK3nr/kPwWa712dXeYaNZ8ErLT/ag98tDNJIo ACxhLgZcHpoGDZJ+VBIvEmbNasjxT+qvk1YiPb9E82UfrTSOaIh2qMyx6TxYD4Tcn3qK q9b7lzYL7f78Y5erv4BK2tttj7rvWzM4xb7NBF+b8hCybuGRv6Qmz0LwIsTjA5kVWEuo 3wAO1S8HHNg6o5Cb/kPU6HbI5oQBF/OhqUjdilBf65ZEuBtH/Ah+w17JD3To3mzuSnwJ cspg== Received: by 10.66.87.73 with SMTP id v9mr18580246paz.1.1349411094693; Thu, 04 Oct 2012 21:24:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.16.1.4] (c-50-136-152-22.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [50.136.152.22]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n3sm4226662paz.25.2012.10.04.21.24.52 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 04 Oct 2012 21:24:53 -0700 (PDT) References: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: Cc: "softwires@ietf.org" X-Mailer: iPad Mail (9B206) From: Raghu Ram Gangi Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 21:24:50 -0700 To: "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: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 04:25:04 -0000 Hi Chairs, I am in support of both. Thanks Raghu > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 16:37:52 +0800 > From: Xing Li > To: Suresh Krishnan > Cc: Softwires WG > Subject: Re: [Softwires] Way forward with MAP-T and 4rd > Message-ID: <506D4AE0.4080709@cernet.edu.cn> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > Hi Chairs, > > I am in favor of both. > > Regards, > > xing > > 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 >> >> >> > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 10:53:54 -0500 > From: Behcet Sarikaya > To: Suresh Krishnan > Cc: Softwires WG > Subject: Re: [Softwires] Way forward with MAP-T and 4rd > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Dear Chairs, > > I think that your call needs some clarification. > > First of all, there is no active document that describes MAP-T. > I checked Roberta's draft, > draft-maglione-softwire-map-t-scenarios-00.txt, she gives no > references. > > Is the intention of this call to put all of MAP-E, MAP-T and 4rd into > equal weighting so that the decision can somehow be revisited? > > My experience with CAPWAP protocol selection that we did in 2006 is > that WG continued to work on the selected protocol and developed > extensions, MIB, etc. The other candidates became experimental with > not much work on them. > > Regards, > > Behcet > > On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 3:37 AM, Xing Li wrote: >> Hi Chairs, >> >> I am in favor of both. >> >> Regards, >> >> xing >> >> 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 >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > End of Softwires Digest, Vol 83, Issue 4 > **************************************** From denghui02@gmail.com Thu Oct 4 23:38:08 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 2162B21F8668 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 23:38:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.175 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.175 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.423, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, 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 2vVKaN9t3qH5 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 23:38:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 290C421F8669 for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 23:38:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ob0-f172.google.com with SMTP id v19so1665095obq.31 for ; Thu, 04 Oct 2012 23:38:06 -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=au9m+qSKRsxJxjW7wutdwjjuE4ZNgKEywrxxHzlkEmA=; b=yL38nNnvrTUwgwjq2cCp3vJIk4OxwStvOsuy3EtdMNCnT4TqTMzTTmKP4WQ7rYAPcW K4oz6yHy/meYGHCXWPfJhP+uDh+sSdOaYvWA2lgR/kcDkq+T+8fEp16I0XUvL0o4b88r irKkjzVJZia62Q6QWRvYQRvhBJlgBz/LSEztzeGVmyATBwluww60Ujp+v45+2XN4NBzS 6frhrSH49N9AjjW6U1J+KMI8bxizgnNuYF9ScIUd0ZRlIp67j52ysrHwLGlEpeEZGuVs I3THVJwvu192zLpev18Epd52WghehPvvF21Z86AqpiXRBAWBW6wneXc/14x+7uNIL5db CJHg== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.28.167 with SMTP id c7mr1989113oeh.44.1349419086677; Thu, 04 Oct 2012 23:38:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.182.17.164 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Oct 2012 23:38:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <506136D3.1080700@ericsson.com> References: <506136D3.1080700@ericsson.com> Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 14:38:06 +0800 Message-ID: From: Hui Deng To: Suresh Krishnan Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff1c4a05087c804cb4a1d47 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: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 06:38:08 -0000 --e89a8ff1c4a05087c804cb4a1d47 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I am no the author of two drafts, It should be more convinced that there is a scenario and PS about the motivation of the work. Thanks autho for publishing it quite recently, that would be more appropriate to discuss them during the coming IETF meeting before accept them. Otherwise IETF is going to invent the 2nd wheel for the same problem. thanks a lot -Hui 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 > --e89a8ff1c4a05087c804cb4a1d47 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I am no the author of two drafts,
=A0
It should be= more convinced that there is a scenario and PS about the motivation of the= work.
=A0
Thanks autho for publishing=A0it quite recen= tly, that would be more appropriate to discuss them during=A0the coming IET= F meeting=A0before accept them.
Otherwise IETF is going to invent the=A02nd wheel for the same problem= .
=A0
thanks a lot
=A0
-Hui

=
2012/9/25 Suresh Krishnan <sur= esh.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

--e89a8ff1c4a05087c804cb4a1d47-- From satoru.matsushima@gmail.com Fri Oct 5 08:08:31 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 9C89A21F84D5 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 08:08:31 -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 1IrRg6od4d2U for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 08:08:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-f44.google.com (mail-pa0-f44.google.com [209.85.220.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80CE321F84AE for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 08:08:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id fb11so1923905pad.31 for ; Fri, 05 Oct 2012 08:08:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=XxM3bkVTb2x5VdCr6Us/M84T5TN47dqd0qCQatL55Ac=; b=k1+5p3qIXG+d+szM9jnX9NkrdfqdKQZr99cD9uVGPqPfWzvoFnHanCosBoWwCONirn yF28KohvxGoGoTg2eyDlC/CASDbGKAmaamimL9tdHvUBOD/l6w1jLIt6JUKcHx2OvWx6 0IX7UgGYYFBcAtpSxEkUcY4sKOZjfPNkOj9TDT8mVQR4taju4xRhGOfDYc/kvM3oEeqM 8pRCoKPI3f8CUEmez7p44MYQXJR+Rfnhs8KexlPfnn7OYaaQpp0JgZ3jYJUWLG8DGszM L8zBImioUAGZ8aMKCtMvV3U8vxJbvx32MwZ6qjgpbpdgI4vEfXvjph1W1O2c2HlUdPyZ 0gyg== Received: by 10.66.73.6 with SMTP id h6mr22210088pav.69.1349449707297; Fri, 05 Oct 2012 08:08:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.3.3] (softbank126044192158.bbtec.net. [126.44.192.158]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o7sm2879694pay.14.2012.10.05.08.08.25 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 05 Oct 2012 08:08:26 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.1 \(1498\)) From: Satoru Matsushima In-Reply-To: <506136D3.1080700@ericsson.com> Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2012 00:08:23 +0900 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2BF11866-67EE-4B21-9969-29649A326C31@gmail.com> References: <506136D3.1080700@ericsson.com> To: Suresh Krishnan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1498) 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: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 15:08:31 -0000 Hi, I'm in favor of both a) and b). cheers, --satoru On 2012/09/25, at 13:45, 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 From jmh@joelhalpern.com Fri Oct 5 08:15:00 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 B8C6121F869C; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 08:15:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.11 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.155, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, 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 mOdQdSLKZt31; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 08:14:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from morbo.mail.tigertech.net (morbo.mail.tigertech.net [67.131.251.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47DD221F872E; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 08:14:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailb2.tigertech.net (mailb2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.154]) by morbo.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF12FA3830; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 08:14:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50DC51C07FE; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 08:14:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at b2.tigertech.net Received: from [10.10.10.104] (pool-71-161-51-10.clppva.btas.verizon.net [71.161.51.10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailb2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 42A131C0567; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 08:14:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <506EF961.7040809@joelhalpern.com> Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 11:14:41 -0400 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "A. Jean Mahoney" References: <506E0BD9.8050705@nostrum.com> In-Reply-To: <506E0BD9.8050705@nostrum.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "softwires@ietf.org" , gen-art@ietf.org, Yong Cui , draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation@tools.ietf.org Subject: [Softwires] [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-04 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, 05 Oct 2012 15:15:01 -0000 I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at . Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Document: draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-04 Motivations for Carrier-side Stateless IPv4 over IPv6 Migration Solutions Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern Review Date: 5-Oct-2012 IETF LC End Date: 17-Oct-2012 IESG Telechat date: 25-Oct-2012 Summary: This document is nearly ready for publication as an Informational RFC. Major issues: I may be misreading the first sub-paragraph in section 3.3.2. It seems to assert that no ALGs are necessary with stateless 4v6 solution as "the payload of IPv4 packets is not altered in the path." This seems to make very strong assumptions on the end host behavior, which are not called out in the document. Minor issues: It is unfortunate that the elaborations on the motivations do not correlate with the initial list of those motivations. They are not in the same order, and do not use the same titles. This makes it harder for the reader who, after reading the base list, is looking for more explanation of item(i). The description of the anycast capability (Section 3 bullet 5 and section 3.2.1 first bullet) is very unclear. Since packets are not addressed to the address translator, this reader is left confused as to what "anycast" capability is preserved by this and damaged by stateful NAT. A few additional words in section 3.2.1 would be helpful. The issues raised in section 4 of the document ("Discussion") are interesting. But they do not seem related to the motivation for seeking a stateless v4v6 solution. They seem to be details of how such a solution might be built. Why is this section in this document? Nits/editorial comments: From mohamed.boucadair@orange.com Fri Oct 5 08:38:07 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 DB3AD21F8740; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 08:38:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.102 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.102 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.146, 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 uTtXvtNm-+SM; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 08:38:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1389721F8731; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 08:38:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omfedm07.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.3]) by omfedm11.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 4AEC83B4167; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 17:38:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from PUEXCH41.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.30]) by omfedm07.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 2A6694C024; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 17:38:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.8]) by PUEXCH41.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.30]) with mapi; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 17:38:06 +0200 From: To: "Joel M. Halpern" , "A. Jean Mahoney" Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 17:38:04 +0200 Thread-Topic: [Softwires] [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-04 Thread-Index: Ac2jDDsIoI58CP+fQG2/u1dH7nWQngAAKfUQ Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E5FA80A70@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> References: <506E0BD9.8050705@nostrum.com> <506EF961.7040809@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: <506EF961.7040809@joelhalpern.com> 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: 2012.10.5.124533 Cc: "softwires@ietf.org" , "gen-art@ietf.org" , Yong Cui , "draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Softwires] [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-04 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, 05 Oct 2012 15:38:08 -0000 Dear Joel, Thank you for the review.=20 Please see inline.=20 Cheers, Med=20 >-----Message d'origine----- >De : softwires-bounces@ietf.org=20 >[mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Joel M. Halpern >Envoy=E9 : vendredi 5 octobre 2012 17:15 >=C0 : A. Jean Mahoney >Cc : softwires@ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.org; Yong Cui;=20 >draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation@tools.ietf.org >Objet : [Softwires] [Gen-art] Review:=20 >draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-04 > >I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on >Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > >. > >Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments >you may receive. > >Document: draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-04 > Motivations for Carrier-side Stateless IPv4 over IPv6 > Migration Solutions >Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern >Review Date: 5-Oct-2012 >IETF LC End Date: 17-Oct-2012 >IESG Telechat date: 25-Oct-2012 > >Summary: This document is nearly ready for publication as an=20 >Informational RFC. > >Major issues: > I may be misreading the first sub-paragraph in section 3.3.2. It=20 >seems to assert that no ALGs are necessary with stateless 4v6 solution=20 >as "the payload of IPv4 packets is not altered in the path." =20 >This seems=20 >to make very strong assumptions on the end host behavior,=20 >which are not=20 >called out in the document. Med: I guess you are referring to this text:=20 Facilitates service evolution: Since the payload of IPv4 packets is not altered in the path, services can evolve without requiring any specific function (e.g., Application Level Gateway (ALG)) in the Service Provider's network; The host behaviour is the same as for deployments where no NAT is enabled i= n the SP's network.=20 Could you please clarify what is the issue with that text?=20 Would it be better if I change "not altered in the path" with "not altered = in Service Provider's network"? > >Minor issues: > It is unfortunate that the elaborations on the motivations do not=20 >correlate with the initial list of those motivations. They are not in=20 >the same order, and do not use the same titles. This makes it harder=20 >for the reader who, after reading the base list, is looking for more=20 >explanation of item(i). Med: Point taken, I will see how to re-order the list to be aligned with th= e sections/sub-sections ordering. > > The description of the anycast capability (Section 3 bullet 5 and=20 >section 3.2.1 first bullet) is very unclear. Since packets are not=20 >addressed to the address translator, this reader is left=20 >confused as to=20 >what "anycast" capability is preserved by this and damaged by stateful=20 >NAT. A few additional words in section 3.2.1 would be helpful. Med: What about this change? OLD: "anycast-based schemes can be used for load-balancing and redundancy = purposes." NEW: "anycast-based schemes can be used for load-balancing and redundancy p= urposes between nodes embedding the Stateless IPv4/IPv6 interconnection fun= ction." > > The issues raised in section 4 of the document ("Discussion") are=20 >interesting. But they do not seem related to the motivation=20 >for seeking=20 >a stateless v4v6 solution. They seem to be details of how such a=20 >solution might be built. Why is this section in this document? Med: We added this section because we received comments asking for having a= section listing the main "limitations(?)" stateless solutions. It was a fa= ir comment. > >Nits/editorial comments: >_______________________________________________ >Softwires mailing list >Softwires@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >= From jmh@joelhalpern.com Fri Oct 5 08:52:35 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 9562F21F876F; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 08:52:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.115 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.115 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, 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 qVtNSLbcXBl1; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 08:52:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from morbo.mail.tigertech.net (morbo.mail.tigertech.net [67.131.251.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEF2521F8762; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 08:52:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailc2.tigertech.net (mailc2.tigertech.net [208.80.4.156]) by morbo.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92F23557F8B; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 08:52:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 090A11BDB84F; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 08:52:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at c2.tigertech.net Received: from [10.10.10.104] (pool-71-161-51-10.clppva.btas.verizon.net [71.161.51.10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailc2.tigertech.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B16531BDB828; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 08:52:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <506F022C.1040302@joelhalpern.com> Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2012 11:52:12 -0400 From: "Joel M. Halpern" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com References: <506E0BD9.8050705@nostrum.com> <506EF961.7040809@joelhalpern.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E5FA80A70@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> In-Reply-To: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E5FA80A70@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: "softwires@ietf.org" , "gen-art@ietf.org" , Yong Cui , "A. Jean Mahoney" , "draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Softwires] [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-04 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, 05 Oct 2012 15:52:35 -0000 Thank you for the prompt followup. Taking things out of order, if the Discussion section were called Limitations, I would have understood why it was there. It is not clear to me that the content actually describes limitations though. It describes design choices that need to be made in specifying and deploying statelessv4v6 solutions. On the packet preservation description text in section 3.3.2, I am not sure what assumptions the document makes. For good and appropriate reasons, the document does not describe. I believe tat the ability to avoid ALGs is dependent upon more specific choices of solution, beyond merely the stateless property. Would it be acceptable to weaken the statement in the document to one that notes that stateless solutions admit the possibility of solutions which do not require ALGs? And that such avoidance is highly desirable? Yours, Joel On 10/5/2012 11:38 AM, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote: > Dear Joel, > > Thank you for the review. > > Please see inline. > > Cheers, > Med > >> -----Message d'origine----- >> De : softwires-bounces@ietf.org >> [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Joel M. Halpern >> Envoy : vendredi 5 octobre 2012 17:15 >> : A. Jean Mahoney >> Cc : softwires@ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.org; Yong Cui; >> draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation@tools.ietf.org >> Objet : [Softwires] [Gen-art] Review: >> draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-04 >> >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on >> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at >> >> . >> >> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments >> you may receive. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-04 >> Motivations for Carrier-side Stateless IPv4 over IPv6 >> Migration Solutions >> Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern >> Review Date: 5-Oct-2012 >> IETF LC End Date: 17-Oct-2012 >> IESG Telechat date: 25-Oct-2012 >> >> Summary: This document is nearly ready for publication as an >> Informational RFC. >> >> Major issues: >> I may be misreading the first sub-paragraph in section 3.3.2. It >> seems to assert that no ALGs are necessary with stateless 4v6 solution >> as "the payload of IPv4 packets is not altered in the path." >> This seems >> to make very strong assumptions on the end host behavior, >> which are not >> called out in the document. > > Med: I guess you are referring to this text: > > Facilitates service evolution: Since the payload of IPv4 packets is > not altered in the path, services can evolve without requiring any > specific function (e.g., Application Level Gateway (ALG)) in the > Service Provider's network; > > The host behaviour is the same as for deployments where no NAT is enabled in the SP's network. > > Could you please clarify what is the issue with that text? > Would it be better if I change "not altered in the path" with "not altered in Service Provider's network"? > >> >> Minor issues: >> It is unfortunate that the elaborations on the motivations do not >> correlate with the initial list of those motivations. They are not in >> the same order, and do not use the same titles. This makes it harder >> for the reader who, after reading the base list, is looking for more >> explanation of item(i). > > Med: Point taken, I will see how to re-order the list to be aligned with the sections/sub-sections ordering. > >> >> The description of the anycast capability (Section 3 bullet 5 and >> section 3.2.1 first bullet) is very unclear. Since packets are not >> addressed to the address translator, this reader is left >> confused as to >> what "anycast" capability is preserved by this and damaged by stateful >> NAT. A few additional words in section 3.2.1 would be helpful. > > Med: What about this change? > > OLD: "anycast-based schemes can be used for load-balancing and redundancy purposes." > NEW: "anycast-based schemes can be used for load-balancing and redundancy purposes between nodes embedding the Stateless IPv4/IPv6 interconnection function." > > >> >> The issues raised in section 4 of the document ("Discussion") are >> interesting. But they do not seem related to the motivation >> for seeking >> a stateless v4v6 solution. They seem to be details of how such a >> solution might be built. Why is this section in this document? > > Med: We added this section because we received comments asking for having a section listing the main "limitations(?)" stateless solutions. It was a fair comment. > >> >> Nits/editorial comments: >> _______________________________________________ >> Softwires mailing list >> Softwires@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >> From sarikaya2012@gmail.com Fri Oct 5 09:20:43 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 C7C5821F8799 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 09:20:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.495 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.104, 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 sHpiYgmaU6q4 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 09:20:43 -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 334D121F8794 for ; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 09:20:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ie0-f172.google.com with SMTP id 9so4938428iec.31 for ; Fri, 05 Oct 2012 09:20:42 -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; bh=milbS5UbIDbFVaidiOKfTRPkXEDIAQZbmOAvisUkD9o=; b=nPKNUBg7gXcjMd3PSXz5ZGYNPDxTrmNHcxcKBCeDJAjwDiEuRJLJxc5IuYOJyYHZVu CyWdB5ElfuugNI8KKxUoxao8P2gReSEXNmtTwGv2ck5zp6xFR/5nzbra7JC7eNce+lpe GNf9S6hGapG4oNRIkItjP5EORX+dlvYeLuUCxi0W8b6iDkPddjFqAAvgWDDvH0xZjDXO KQTIGep7OwOp59ryCKWTPyqlLdc9GJrpnSTHR3tcmYPNFFOGm33HFl0tGuacbhPEddO+ qxuqay5vAoq8mtj5gR1TlgRJDNU+9JmINBEYGu4MwNAZA0wJMIsx65y5Z/itRSgIX2Vq u+Uw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.95.231 with SMTP id dn7mr1679886igb.37.1349454042710; Fri, 05 Oct 2012 09:20:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.85.26 with HTTP; Fri, 5 Oct 2012 09:20:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <506E34E3.1080106@ericsson.com> References: <506136D3.1080700@ericsson.com> <506D4AE0.4080709@cernet.edu.cn> <506E34E3.1080106@ericsson.com> Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 11:20:42 -0500 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: Suresh Krishnan Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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 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, 05 Oct 2012 16:20:43 -0000 Hi Suresh, Thanks for clarifying. I am in support of both a and b. Regards, Behcet On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > Hi Behcet, > > On 10/04/2012 11:53 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: >> Dear Chairs, >> >> I think that your call needs some clarification. >> >> First of all, there is no active document that describes MAP-T. > > Correct. There is no such draft yet. The idea is to split out the MAP-T > pieces of the MAP draft into a separate draft if the wg is in favor of > continuing work on MAP-T. > >> I checked Roberta's draft, >> draft-maglione-softwire-map-t-scenarios-00.txt, she gives no >> references. >> >> Is the intention of this call to put all of MAP-E, MAP-T and 4rd into >> equal weighting so that the decision can somehow be revisited? > > No. Not at all. On the contrary we are going with MAP-E as the proposed > standard solution. This call is to decide what we want to do with the > other two solutions. > >> >> My experience with CAPWAP protocol selection that we did in 2006 is >> that WG continued to work on the selected protocol and developed >> extensions, MIB, etc. The other candidates became experimental with >> not much work on them. > > MAP-T and 4rd will be progressed as experimental if the wg is in favor > of continued work on them. > > Thanks > Suresh > From mohamed.boucadair@orange.com Sun Oct 7 23:13:08 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 D11FE21F8701; Sun, 7 Oct 2012 23:13:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.105 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.143, 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 4uRKKt5kCUHx; Sun, 7 Oct 2012 23:13:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98E0621F86DC; Sun, 7 Oct 2012 23:13:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omfedm07.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.3]) by omfedm14.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 3302822C35E; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 08:13:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from PUEXCH51.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.31]) by omfedm07.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 119374C015; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 08:13:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.8]) by PUEXCH51.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.31]) with mapi; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 08:13:05 +0200 From: To: "Joel M. Halpern" Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 08:13:04 +0200 Thread-Topic: [Softwires] [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-04 Thread-Index: Ac2jEWzshgS5iV3HSkeKfqjMXQebCwCBoGLA Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E6174562C@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> References: <506E0BD9.8050705@nostrum.com> <506EF961.7040809@joelhalpern.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E5FA80A70@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <506F022C.1040302@joelhalpern.com> In-Reply-To: <506F022C.1040302@joelhalpern.com> 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: 2012.10.8.50339 Cc: "softwires@ietf.org" , "gen-art@ietf.org" , Yong Cui , "A. Jean Mahoney" , "draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Softwires] [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-04 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, 08 Oct 2012 06:13:09 -0000 Dear Joel, Please see inline. Cheers, Med=20 >-----Message d'origine----- >De : Joel M. Halpern [mailto:jmh@joelhalpern.com]=20 >Envoy=E9 : vendredi 5 octobre 2012 17:52 >=C0 : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN >Cc : A. Jean Mahoney; softwires@ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.org;=20 >Yong Cui; draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation@tools.ietf.org >Objet : Re: [Softwires] [Gen-art] Review:=20 >draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-04 > >Thank you for the prompt followup. > >Taking things out of order, if the Discussion section were called=20 >Limitations, I would have understood why it was there. It is=20 >not clear=20 >to me that the content actually describes limitations though. It=20 >describes design choices that need to be made in specifying and=20 >deploying statelessv4v6 solutions. Med: The points listed in that section are usually presented as limitations= of the solution. If you noticed I said in my first answer "limitations(?)"= because I disagree those points were limitations but rather open questions= which depend on the design choices.=20 > >On the packet preservation description text in section 3.3.2, I am not=20 >sure what assumptions the document makes. For good and appropriate=20 >reasons, the document does not describe. I believe tat the ability to=20 >avoid ALGs is dependent upon more specific choices of solution, beyond=20 >merely the stateless property. =20 Would it be acceptable to weaken the=20 >statement in the document to one that notes that stateless solutions=20 >admit the possibility of solutions which do not require ALGs? =20 >And that=20 >such avoidance is highly desirable? Med: Below a text proposal:=20 OLD: Facilitates service evolution: Since the payload of IPv4 packets is not altered in the path, services can evolve without requiring any specific function (e.g., Application Level Gateway (ALG)) in the Service Provider's network; NEW: Facilitates service evolution: Stateless solutions admit applications can be deployed without enabling any application- specific function (e.g., Application Level Gateway (ALG)) in the Service Provider's network. Avoiding ALGs is highly desirable. Better? > >Yours, >Joel > >On 10/5/2012 11:38 AM, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote: >> Dear Joel, >> >> Thank you for the review. >> >> Please see inline. >> >> Cheers, >> Med >> >>> -----Message d'origine----- >>> De : softwires-bounces@ietf.org >>> [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Joel M. Halpern >>> Envoy=E9 : vendredi 5 octobre 2012 17:15 >>> =C0 : A. Jean Mahoney >>> Cc : softwires@ietf.org; gen-art@ietf.org; Yong Cui; >>> draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation@tools.ietf.org >>> Objet : [Softwires] [Gen-art] Review: >>> draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-04 >>> >>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on >>> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at >>> >>> . >>> >>> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last=20 >Call comments >>> you may receive. >>> >>> Document: draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-04 >>> Motivations for Carrier-side Stateless IPv4 over IPv6 >>> Migration Solutions >>> Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern >>> Review Date: 5-Oct-2012 >>> IETF LC End Date: 17-Oct-2012 >>> IESG Telechat date: 25-Oct-2012 >>> >>> Summary: This document is nearly ready for publication as an >>> Informational RFC. >>> >>> Major issues: >>> I may be misreading the first sub-paragraph in section=20 >3.3.2. It >>> seems to assert that no ALGs are necessary with stateless=20 >4v6 solution >>> as "the payload of IPv4 packets is not altered in the path." >>> This seems >>> to make very strong assumptions on the end host behavior, >>> which are not >>> called out in the document. >> >> Med: I guess you are referring to this text: >> >> Facilitates service evolution: Since the payload of=20 >IPv4 packets is >> not altered in the path, services can evolve without=20 >requiring any >> specific function (e.g., Application Level Gateway=20 >(ALG)) in the >> Service Provider's network; >> >> The host behaviour is the same as for deployments where no=20 >NAT is enabled in the SP's network. >> >> Could you please clarify what is the issue with that text? >> Would it be better if I change "not altered in the path"=20 >with "not altered in Service Provider's network"? >> >>> >>> Minor issues: >>> It is unfortunate that the elaborations on the=20 >motivations do not >>> correlate with the initial list of those motivations. They=20 >are not in >>> the same order, and do not use the same titles. This makes=20 >it harder >>> for the reader who, after reading the base list, is looking for more >>> explanation of item(i). >> >> Med: Point taken, I will see how to re-order the list to be=20 >aligned with the sections/sub-sections ordering. >> >>> >>> The description of the anycast capability (Section 3=20 >bullet 5 and >>> section 3.2.1 first bullet) is very unclear. Since packets are not >>> addressed to the address translator, this reader is left >>> confused as to >>> what "anycast" capability is preserved by this and damaged=20 >by stateful >>> NAT. A few additional words in section 3.2.1 would be helpful. >> >> Med: What about this change? >> >> OLD: "anycast-based schemes can be used for load-balancing=20 >and redundancy purposes." >> NEW: "anycast-based schemes can be used for load-balancing=20 >and redundancy purposes between nodes embedding the Stateless=20 >IPv4/IPv6 interconnection function." >> >> >>> >>> The issues raised in section 4 of the document=20 >("Discussion") are >>> interesting. But they do not seem related to the motivation >>> for seeking >>> a stateless v4v6 solution. They seem to be details of how such a >>> solution might be built. Why is this section in this document? >> >> Med: We added this section because we received comments=20 >asking for having a section listing the main "limitations(?)"=20 >stateless solutions. It was a fair comment. >> >>> >>> Nits/editorial comments: >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Softwires mailing list >>> Softwires@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >>> >= From wwwrun@rfc-editor.org Mon Oct 8 05:35:44 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 0735F21F8522 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 05:35:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.331 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.331 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.269, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, 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 HhOZu9wpRd66 for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 05:35:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A0D221F874C for ; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 05:35:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id F3455B1E003; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 05:30:51 -0700 (PDT) To: roberta.maglione@telecomitalia.it, adurand@juniper.net, rdroms.ietf@gmail.com, brian@innovationslab.net, suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com, cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn From: RFC Errata System Message-Id: <20121008123051.F3455B1E003@rfc-editor.org> Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 05:30:51 -0700 (PDT) Cc: softwires@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, aland@deployingradius.com Subject: [Softwires] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6519 (3372) 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, 08 Oct 2012 12:35:44 -0000 The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6519, "RADIUS Extensions for Dual-Stack Lite". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6519&eid=3372 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Alan DeKok Section: 3 Original Text ------------- In the scenario depicted in Figure 2, the Access-Request packet contains a Service-Type attribute with the value Authorize Only (17); thus, according to [RFC5080], the Access-Request packet MUST contain a State attribute. Corrected Text -------------- In the scenario depicted in Figure 2, the Access-Request packet contains a Service-Type attribute with the value Call-Check (10). Notes ----- The document references RFC 5080. However, the use of the State attribute in this document is wrong. The text in RFC 5080 clearly says that State is used to tie an "Authorize Only" request to a previous authentication. The text requiring State in "Authorize Only" is surrounded by explanations describing *why* it's required. The original text in RFC 6519 appears to say that adding State magically satisfies the requirements of 5080. But it ignores all of the surrounding text. The NAS can't simply invent a State attribute, to satisfy the requirement of 5080. It MUST get the State from a previous Access-Accept. Since there's no previous Access-Accept here, the use of Authorize-Only and State is wrong. RFC 2865 suggests the use of "Service-Type = Call Check" for this kind of authorization checking: Call Check Used by the NAS in an Access-Request packet to indicate that a call is being received and that the RADIUS server should send back an Access-Accept to answer the call, or an Access-Reject to not accept the call, typically based on the Called-Station-Id or Calling-Station-Id attributes. It is recommended that such Access-Requests use the value of Calling-Station-Id as the value of the User-Name Instructions: ------------- This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC6519 (draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-radius-ext-07) -------------------------------------- Title : RADIUS Extensions for Dual-Stack Lite Publication Date : February 2012 Author(s) : R. Maglione, A. Durand Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Softwires Area : Internet Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG From leaf.y.yeh@huawei.com Mon Oct 8 19:38:24 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 A6E4B21F8487; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 19:38:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.469 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.130, 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 VBIKVFZPHRSa; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 19:38:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3403D11E809B; Mon, 8 Oct 2012 19:38:23 -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 AKK63389; Tue, 09 Oct 2012 02:38:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 03:38:05 +0100 Received: from SZXEML419-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.158) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 03:38:17 +0100 Received: from SZXEML546-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.192]) by szxeml419-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.158]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 10:38:14 +0800 From: Leaf yeh To: "aland@deployingradius.com" , Bernard Aboba Thread-Topic: [Softwires] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6519 (3372) Thread-Index: AQHNpVF09lcNwk9Xbke928JQybrftJewPERg Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2012 02:38:13 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20121008123051.F3455B1E003@rfc-editor.org> In-Reply-To: <20121008123051.F3455B1E003@rfc-editor.org> 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="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Cc: "softwires@ietf.org" , "radext@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Softwires] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6519 (3372) 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, 09 Oct 2012 02:38:24 -0000 Could we update the description of 'service-type(6)=3DCall check' as follow= s,=20 '... typically based on the NAS-Port-Id(87), or Calling-Station-Id(31) attr= ibutes, etc. It is recommended that such Access-Requests use the value of N= AS-Port-Id or Calling-Station-Id as the value of the User-Name.' if we believe the *call* is not only associated with the telephone system? Best Regards, Leaf -----Original Message----- From: softwires-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] On Beh= alf Of RFC Errata System Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 8:31 PM To: roberta.maglione@telecomitalia.it; adurand@juniper.net; rdroms.ietf@gma= il.com; brian@innovationslab.net; suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com; cuiyong@tsi= nghua.edu.cn Cc: softwires@ietf.org; rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org; aland@deployingradius.co= m Subject: [Softwires] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6519 (3372) The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6519, "RADIUS Extensions for Dual-Stack Lite". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=3D6519&eid=3D3372 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Alan DeKok Section: 3 Original Text ------------- In the scenario depicted in Figure 2, the Access-Request packet contains a Service-Type attribute with the value Authorize Only (17); thus, according to [RFC5080], the Access-Request packet MUST contain a State attribute. Corrected Text -------------- In the scenario depicted in Figure 2, the Access-Request packet contains a Service-Type attribute with the value Call-Check (10). Notes ----- The document references RFC 5080. However, the use of the State attribute = in this document is wrong. The text in RFC 5080 clearly says that State is= used to tie an "Authorize Only" request to a previous authentication. The= text requiring State in "Authorize Only" is surrounded by explanations des= cribing *why* it's required. The original text in RFC 6519 appears to say that adding State magically sa= tisfies the requirements of 5080. But it ignores all of the surrounding te= xt. The NAS can't simply invent a State attribute, to satisfy the requirement o= f 5080. It MUST get the State from a previous Access-Accept. Since there'= s no previous Access-Accept here, the use of Authorize-Only and State is wr= ong. RFC 2865 suggests the use of "Service-Type =3D Call Check" for this kind of= authorization checking: Call Check=20 Used by the NAS in an Access-Request packet to indicate that a call is being received and that the RADIUS server should send back an Access-Accept to answer the call, or an Access-Reject to not accept the call, typically based on the Called-Station-Id or Calling-Station-Id attributes. It is recommended that such Access-Requests use the value of Calling-Station-Id as the value of the User-Name Instructions: ------------- This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.=20 -------------------------------------- RFC6519 (draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-radius-ext-07) -------------------------------------- Title : RADIUS Extensions for Dual-Stack Lite Publication Date : February 2012 Author(s) : R. Maglione, A. Durand Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Softwires Area : Internet Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires From internet-drafts@ietf.org Tue Oct 9 19:38:59 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 9505C11E80A4; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 19:38:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.504 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.095, 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 8afL2nHQTRxY; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 19:38:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28B7521F86C3; Tue, 9 Oct 2012 19:38:59 -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: <20121010023859.25161.99907.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 19:38:59 -0700 Cc: softwires@ietf.org Subject: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-6rd-radius-attrib-07.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, 10 Oct 2012 02:38:59 -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 : RADIUS Attribute for 6rd Author(s) : Dayong Guo Sheng Jiang Remi Despres Roberta Maglione Filename : draft-ietf-softwire-6rd-radius-attrib-07.txt Pages : 11 Date : 2012-10-09 Abstract: IPv6 Rapid Deployment (6rd) is one of the most popular methods to provide both IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity services simultaneously during the IPv4/IPv6 co-existing period. The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) 6rd option has been defined to configure 6rd Customer Edge (CE). However, in many networks, the configuration information may be stored in Authentication Authorization and Accounting (AAA) servers while user configuration is mainly from Broadband Network Gateway (BNG) through DHCP protocol. This document defines a Remote Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) attribute that carries 6rd configuration information from AAA server to BNG. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-6rd-radius-attrib There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-6rd-radius-attrib-07 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-softwire-6rd-radius-attrib-07 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn Thu Oct 11 00:49:43 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 6D00121F86D9 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 00:49:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=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 Vqgp4S3trqEu for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 00:49:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.tsinghua.edu.cn (smtp.tsinghua.edu.cn [166.111.8.81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2E9621F86CB for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 00:49:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from th024122.ip.tsinghua.edu.cn ([59.66.24.122]) by smtp.tsinghua.edu.cn with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TMDVz-00042I-KN; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:49:15 +0800 User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.0.0.100825 Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:47:33 +0800 From: Yong Cui To: Softwires WG Message-ID: Thread-Topic: Call for presentation in IETF 85 Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Subject: [Softwires] Call for presentation in IETF 85 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, 11 Oct 2012 07:49:43 -0000 Hi folks, We will have two sessions in the coming IETF meeting in Atlanta according to the preliminary agenda: 1) Afternoon Session I on Tuesday (2h); 2) Afternoon Session I on Wednesday (1.5h). Please send your request to Suresh and me in the following format by Oct. 20 if you would like to have a time slot: (name, title, link to IETF datatracker, minutes requested). Thanks, Yong & Suresh From suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com Thu Oct 11 14:00:18 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 3470321F8594 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:00:18 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 b-ZnJP7CF4cV for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:00:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C94921F854E for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 14:00:17 -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 q9BL1GTE010662 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 16:01:22 -0500 Received: from [142.133.112.74] (147.117.20.214) by smtps-am.internal.ericsson.com (147.117.20.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.279.1; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 17:00:14 -0400 Message-ID: <5077335D.5040906@ericsson.com> Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 17:00:13 -0400 From: Suresh Krishnan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120912 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Softwires WG References: <4FD206D3.3010200@ericsson.com> <4FEB2D67.1010901@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <4FEB2D67.1010901@ericsson.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Softwires] Confirmation of decision to continue work on 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: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 21:00:18 -0000 Hi all, After going through the responses to the confirmation call, it was clear that the WG is clearly in favor of continuing work on MAP-T and 4rd. There was also consensus that MAP-E should be progressed first from the wg before MAP-T and 4rd. There is already a working group draft for 4rd and we will work with the authors of MAP-T to get an initial wg draft out as early as possible. Thanks Suresh & Yong From otroan@employees.org Fri Oct 12 06:04:23 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 0E40021F848F for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2012 06:04:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.21 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.089, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 Q9vqvI26ki4T for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2012 06:04:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C74E21F8487 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2012 06:04:21 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjwFAHQUeFCQ/khR/2dsb2JhbABEDoU9uhCBCIIgAQEBAwESAQodPwULC0ZXBjWHXAYLmhGgCwSRL2ADm0+IY4FrgjI9 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,576,1344211200"; d="scan'208";a="77422737" Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.72.81]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Oct 2012 13:04:16 +0000 Received: from [10.47.5.218] ([10.47.5.218]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q9CD4GZ4026180 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 12 Oct 2012 13:04:16 GMT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.1 \(1498\)) From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ole_Tr=F8an?= In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 15:04:15 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <54C2D90B-53A4-43AC-9AD3-57325822FC9B@employees.org> References: To: Yong Cui X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1498) Cc: Softwires WG Subject: Re: [Softwires] Call for presentation in IETF 85 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, 12 Oct 2012 13:04:23 -0000 Chairs, > We will have two sessions in the coming IETF meeting > in Atlanta according to the preliminary agenda: > 1) Afternoon Session I on Tuesday (2h); > 2) Afternoon Session I on Wednesday (1.5h). >=20 > Please send your request to Suresh and me in the following > format by Oct. 20 if you would like to have a time slot: >=20 > (name, title, link to IETF datatracker, minutes requested). (Ole Troan, Mapping of Address and Port with Encapsulation (MAP), = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map/, 15) cheers, Ole From internet-drafts@ietf.org Sat Oct 13 23:24:02 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 4729321F84CE; Sat, 13 Oct 2012 23:24:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.476 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.476 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.123, 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 AsUQeTL46GvR; Sat, 13 Oct 2012 23:24:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFE8021F84B2; Sat, 13 Oct 2012 23:24:01 -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: <20121014062401.6238.83738.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2012 23:24:01 -0700 Cc: softwires@ietf.org Subject: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-04.txt X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 06:24:02 -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 : Public IPv4 over IPv6 Access Network Author(s) : Yong Cui Jianping Wu Peng Wu Olivier Vautrin Yiu L. Lee Filename : draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-04.txt Pages : 13 Date : 2012-10-13 Abstract: When the service provider networks are upgraded to IPv6, end users will continue to demand IPv4 connectivity. This document proposes a mechanism for hosts or customer networks in IPv6 access network to build bidirectional IPv4 communication with the IPv4 Internet. The mechanism follows the hub and spokes softwire model, and uses IPv4- over-IPv6 tunnel as basic method to traverse IPv6 network. The bi- directionality of this IPv4 communication is achieved by explicitly allocating public IPv4 addresses to end users, as well as maintaining IPv4-IPv6 address binding on the border relay. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6 There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-04 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-04 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From pengwu.thu@gmail.com Sat Oct 13 23:35:15 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 B266921F849B for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2012 23:35:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.479 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.479 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.120, 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 s+QLcjnCBkTZ for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2012 23:35:15 -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 CD31021F8493 for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2012 23:35:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id fl11so5268791vcb.31 for ; Sat, 13 Oct 2012 23:35:14 -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=ZXTsuK/wyk51+SjxeyEnMYbzcTZ1yX0yE6jhjxVk/SA=; b=VaGEXCWAfwmv8hUGqrM4JR94HNznC8ncFTCY2g6LkFHb4mrcMUxPmdon9QuWBHiBlK HiHlaLBdnv6p6SAJHgLp4xi+QVB+tzeKQCV7U0v6YzLAFGEjLct1YvVFf8mYRNqwcZHn +z7C12Nzb2RlE2+gCIxNEnrj2JQASi5Zm7fo9RYl2rIIiwSotSY+4N+SM4MQHuV6tcPw TOyDiSQrW89W1EpaqCL1LHfI174Bs9GdYiiWw2nJFZnBH8xt7qqCDSUV1wNLO8G/PsG/ WyGk/jRJWgHAwEsFA0JNoud7e/aWvIQSRT0AK3EeO9aXcSmUzxfaTNr5ZGNYeOUeBujR zVdw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.58.95.65 with SMTP id di1mr5028600veb.55.1350196514000; Sat, 13 Oct 2012 23:35:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.58.163.102 with HTTP; Sat, 13 Oct 2012 23:35:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20121014062401.6238.83738.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20121014062401.6238.83738.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 14:35:13 +0800 Message-ID: From: Peng Wu To: Softwires WG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-04.txt X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 06:35:15 -0000 Hi all, This version addresses the issues Suresh rasied on the mailing list. (Many thanks to Suresh for a comprehensive review.) The changes include: *Section 1: Add some texts on the motivation of the mechanism. *Section 3: Clarify that customer network behind the 4over6 CE could be IPv4-only or dual-stack; State that BR is also a DHCPv4 over IPv6 server/relay. *Section 4: Put some text to explain how Public 4over6 can integrate with DS-Lite. *Section 5.1: Improve the preciseness of the figure and the working flow described under the figure. *Section 6: Clarify the DHCPv6 option [RFC6334] that 4over6 CE uses to get the BR=92s IPv6 address. Added a paragraph to describe the CE=92s behavior of switching to DS-Lite. *Section 7: Remove the case that BR doesn=92t participate the DHCPv4 over IPv6 process, for DS-lite integration consideration . Cheers, Peng. On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 2:24 PM, wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts direct= ories. > This draft is a work item of the Softwires Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Public IPv4 over IPv6 Access Network > Author(s) : Yong Cui > Jianping Wu > Peng Wu > Olivier Vautrin > Yiu L. Lee > Filename : draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-04.txt > Pages : 13 > Date : 2012-10-13 > > Abstract: > When the service provider networks are upgraded to IPv6, end users > will continue to demand IPv4 connectivity. This document proposes a > mechanism for hosts or customer networks in IPv6 access network to > build bidirectional IPv4 communication with the IPv4 Internet. The > mechanism follows the hub and spokes softwire model, and uses IPv4- > over-IPv6 tunnel as basic method to traverse IPv6 network. The bi- > directionality of this IPv4 communication is achieved by explicitly > allocating public IPv4 addresses to end users, as well as maintaining > IPv4-IPv6 address binding on the border relay. > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6 > > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-04 > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-04 > > > 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 internet-drafts@ietf.org Sun Oct 14 00:54:57 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 3247F21F84F3; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 00:54:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.498 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.498 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.101, 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 wegskAgCmJJd; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 00:54:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDAC121F84D7; Sun, 14 Oct 2012 00:54:56 -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: <20121014075456.13440.19696.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 00:54:56 -0700 Cc: softwires@ietf.org Subject: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-t-00.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: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 07:54:57 -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 using Translation (MAP-T) Author(s) : Xing Li Congxiao Bao Wojciech Dec Ole Troan Satoru Matsushima Tetsuya Murakami Filename : draft-ietf-softwire-map-t-00.txt Pages : 29 Date : 2012-10-12 Abstract: This document specifies the "Mapping of Address and Port" double stateless translation based solution (MAP-T) for providing shared or uniquely addressed IPv4 host connectivity to and across an IPv6 domain, The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map-t There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-t-00 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From despres.remi@laposte.net Tue Oct 16 02:31:46 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 1D28C21F88A2; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 02:31:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.549 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.400, 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 7iJdJF89oTPf; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 02:31:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp23.services.sfr.fr (smtp23.services.sfr.fr [93.17.128.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 272DE21F8899; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 02:31:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from filter.sfr.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by msfrf2302.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id DBF8870001A2; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:31:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.0.21] (per92-10-88-166-221-144.fbx.proxad.net [88.166.221.144]) by msfrf2302.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id AD4BD700019C; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:31:43 +0200 (CEST) X-SFR-UUID: 20121016093143709.AD4BD700019C@msfrf2302.sfr.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9mi_Despr=E9s?= Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:31:43 +0200 Message-Id: References: <20121015181509.C4615B1E002@rfc-editor.org> To: Softwires WG X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: v6ops WG Subject: [Softwires] FYI - RFC 6751 available - Native IPv6 behind NAT44s (6a44) 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, 16 Oct 2012 09:31:46 -0000 Hello all, RFC 6751 is now available at http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6751). It describes a new tunneling solution for providers to offer IPv6 = service behind IPv4-only CPEs. Like 6rd, 6a44 is a provider-local = solution using provider allocated prefixes. As such, it has over Teredo = an advantage similar to that of 6rd over 6to4.=20 Because it couldn't fit in any WG scope, and in order to avoid too long = a delay, the choice has been to submit it in the independent stream, and = consequently with experimental status.=20 In view of its obvious commonality with Softwire solutions, drawing = attention of this WG to its existence is expected to be useful.=20 This is ONLY for information, NOT to start any discussion here. =20 Regards, RD > RFC 6751 >=20 > Title: Native IPv6 behind IPv4-to-IPv4 NAT=20 > Customer Premises Equipment (6a44)=20 > Author: R. Despres, Ed., B. Carpenter,=20 > D. Wing, S. Jiang > Status: Experimental > Stream: Independent > Date: October 2012=20 > Mailbox: despres.remi@laposte.net,=20 > brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com,=20 > dwing@cisco.com, shengjiang@huawei.com From xing@cernet.edu.cn Tue Oct 16 06:58:55 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 4194321F873A for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 06:58:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.374 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.374 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.225, 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 u2g4HZoeipUe for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 06:58:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cernet.edu.cn (sea.net.edu.cn [202.112.39.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FDB221F8700 for ; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 06:58:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [125.34.55.135]) by centos (Coremail) with SMTP id AQAAf3DbCgOIZn1QCCUDAA--.14125S5; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 21:52:13 +0800 (CST) Message-ID: <507D6816.1080702@cernet.edu.cn> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 21:58:46 +0800 From: Xing Li User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yong Cui References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-CM-TRANSID: AQAAf3DbCgOIZn1QCCUDAA--.14125S5 X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvdXoW7Gr48tw17WFyrGw4UZFy3XFb_yoW3Xwc_ur W3uw18t34UAF429w48CFWIyrnxXrWUWrWUJryDAr9rX3W5Aa1qgrs7XrW7u3WfJrWUGrW5 Gr4Sqw1rC345WjkaLaAFLSUrUUUUUb8apTn2vfkv8UJUUUU8Yxn0WfASr-VFAUDa7-sFnT 9fnUUIcSsGvfJTRUUUbeAFF20E14v26r4j6ryUM7CY07I20VC2zVCF04k26cxKx2IYs7xG 6rWj6s0DM7CIcVAFz4kK6r1j6r18M28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rwA2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI 0_JFI_Gr1l84ACjcxK6xIIjxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Gr0_Cr1l84ACjcxK6I8E87Iv67AK xVW8Jr0_Cr1UM28EF7xvwVC2z280aVCY1x0267AKxVW0oVCq3wAS0I0E0xvYzxvE52x082 IY62kv0487Mc02F40EFcxC0VAKzVAqx4xG6I80ewAv7VC0I7IYx2IY67AKxVWUXVWUAwAv 7VC2z280aVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1lOx8S6xCaFVCjc4AY6r1j6r4UM4x0Y48IcVAKI48JM4x0x7 Aq67IIx4CEVc8vx2IErcIFxwCY02Avz4vE14v_Xr4l42xK82IYc2Ij64vIr41lx2IqxVAq x4xG67AKxVWUJVWUGwC20s026x8GjcxK67AKxVWUGVWUWwC2zVAF1VAY17CE14v26r1Y6r 17MIIYrxkI7VAKI48JMIIF0xvE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_JF4lIxAIcVC0I7IYx2IY6xkF 7I0E14v26r1j6r4UMIIF0xvE42xK8VAvwI8IcIk0rVW3JVWrJr1lIxAIcVC2z280aVAFwI 0_Gr0_Cr1lIxAIcVC2z280aVCY1x0267AKxVW8JVW8JrUvcSsGvfC2KfnxnUUI43ZEXa7V UjubyJUUUUU== X-CM-SenderInfo: p0lqwqxfhu0vvwohv3gofq/ Cc: Softwires WG Subject: Re: [Softwires] Call for presentation in IETF 85 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, 16 Oct 2012 13:58:55 -0000 Hi, Chairs, Yong Cui 写道: > Hi folks, > > We will have two sessions in the coming IETF meeting > in Atlanta according to the preliminary agenda: > 1) Afternoon Session I on Tuesday (2h); > 2) Afternoon Session I on Wednesday (1.5h). > > Please send your request to Suresh and me in the following > format by Oct. 20 if you would like to have a time slot: > > (name, title, link to IETF datatracker, minutes requested). > (Xing Li, Mapping of Address and Port using Translation (MAP-T), https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map-t/ 5) Thanks. xing > Thanks, > > Yong & Suresh > > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > > > From internet-drafts@ietf.org Tue Oct 16 08:03:24 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 2A5ED21F8995; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 08:03:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.567 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.567 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.032, 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 AalEgiCXr7AD; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 08:03:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B2D421F8997; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 08:03:23 -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: <20121016150323.24836.51775.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 08:03:23 -0700 Cc: softwires@ietf.org Subject: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-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, 16 Oct 2012 15:03:24 -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 : DHCPv6 Option for IPv4-Embedded Multicast and Unicast IP= v6 Prefixes Author(s) : Mohamed Boucadair Jacni Qin Tina Tsou Xiaohong Deng Filename : draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-02.txt Pages : 7 Date : 2012-10-16 Abstract: This document defines Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol version 6 (DHCPv6) Option for multicast transition solutions, aiming to convey the IPv6 prefixes to be used to build unicast and multicast IPv4- embedded IPv6 addresses. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-02 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-opt= ion-02 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From kristian.poscic@alcatel-lucent.com Wed Oct 17 15:18:10 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 4B0B321F85EA for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:18:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.248 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 CzZpy07MX-x5 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:18:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smail3.alcatel.fr (smail3.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 046A821F859F for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:18:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.64]) by smail3.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id q9HMHcS7022575 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 00:18:06 +0200 Received: from US70UWXCHHUB02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (135.5.2.49) by FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (135.120.45.64) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 00:18:00 +0200 Received: from US70TWXCHMBA11.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.5.149]) by US70UWXCHHUB02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.5.2.49]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 18:17:59 -0400 From: "Poscic, Kristian (Kristian)" To: "softwires@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: DMR in map-T ; draft-ietf-softwire-map-t-00 Thread-Index: Ac2stTcB5vkzJps8TRemVyieYB1RoQ== Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 22:17:59 +0000 Message-ID: <7921F977B17D5B49B8DCC955A339D2F003C574@US70TWXCHMBA11.zam.alcatel-lucent.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.5.27.18] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7921F977B17D5B49B8DCC955A339D2F003C574US70TWXCHMBA11zam_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.83 Subject: [Softwires] DMR in map-T ; draft-ietf-softwire-map-t-00 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, 17 Oct 2012 22:18:10 -0000 --_000_7921F977B17D5B49B8DCC955A339D2F003C574US70TWXCHMBA11zam_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Need a quick clarification in regards to DMR in map-t: - In map-E the BR addresses is part of DMR. So the packet will be = sent directly to the BR IPv6 address. Dest IPv4 as originated by the CE doe= sn't have to be encoded in IPv6 dest addr since the BR can figure out the d= est IPv4 from the encapsulated IPv4 packet. Consequently the de-capsulated = IPv4 packet will be forwarded to the IPv4 network. - But in map-T the DMR does not contain the DR IPv6 add but instea= d the prefix. Since the IPv4 dest will be encoded in the dest IPv6 address,= the BR must now accept all possible IPv6 addresses as long as the prefix m= atches that of the BR. Since the original IPv4 packet is not encapsulated i= n map-t, the BR will look at the dest IPv4 encoded in IPv6 dest address, as= suming that the BR terminates the prefix now and not the IP addr itself. Is= this how this is envisioned, that in map-T the BR terminates the prefix in= stead of an addr? Thanks, Kris --_000_7921F977B17D5B49B8DCC955A339D2F003C574US70TWXCHMBA11zam_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Need a quick clarification in regards to DMR in map-= t:

 

-     &= nbsp;    In map-E the BR addresses is part of DMR. So the pa= cket will be sent directly to the BR IPv6 address. Dest IPv4 as originated = by the CE doesn’t have to be encoded in IPv6 dest addr since the BR c= an figure out the dest IPv4 from the encapsulated IPv4 packet. Consequently the de-capsulated IPv4 packet will be forwarded = to the IPv4 network.

-     &= nbsp;    But in map-T the DMR does not contain the DR IPv6 a= dd but instead the prefix. Since the IPv4 dest will be encoded in the dest = IPv6 address, the BR must now accept all possible IPv6 addresses as long as= the prefix matches that of the BR. Since the original IPv4 packet is not encapsulated in map-t, the BR wi= ll look at the dest IPv4 encoded in IPv6 dest address, assuming that the BR= terminates the prefix now and not the IP addr itself. Is this how this is = envisioned, that in map-T the BR terminates the prefix instead of an addr?

Thanks,

Kris

--_000_7921F977B17D5B49B8DCC955A339D2F003C574US70TWXCHMBA11zam_-- From yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com Wed Oct 17 17:46:32 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 AB97921F862B; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 17:46:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.798 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.433, 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 QXk9iY44ZBJz; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 17:46:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cable.comcast.com (copdcavout01.cable.comcast.com [76.96.32.253]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E46421F8623; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 17:46:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([24.40.56.115]) by copdcavout01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP id C7WM3M1.38137703; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 18:23:03 -0600 Received: from PACDCEXMB05.cable.comcast.com ([169.254.7.147]) by PACDCEXHUB02.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::492e:3fa1:c2ad:e04e%13]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 20:46:26 -0400 From: "Lee, Yiu" To: "Black, David" , "roberta.maglione@telecomitalia.it" , "carlw@mcsr-labs.org" , "christian.jacquenet@orange.com" , "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" , "gen-art@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-deployment-06 Thread-Index: AQHNrMoAT7CfnR/9yUSA1hDdxxOKmg== Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 00:46:24 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE7120DFAEF29@MX15A.corp.emc.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: [24.40.55.70] Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="B_3433351583_493034" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "softwires@ietf.org" , "ietf@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Softwires] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-deployment-06 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, 18 Oct 2012 00:46:32 -0000 --B_3433351583_493034 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Hi David, Thanks very much for review the draft. Comments inline. Thanks, Yiu On 10/15/12 7:10 PM, "Black, David" wrote: >I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on >Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at >. > >Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments >you may receive. > >Document: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-deployment-06 >Reviewer: David L. Black >Review Date: October 15, 2012 >IETF LC End Date: October 16, 2012 >IESG Telechat Date: October 25, 2012 > >Summary: > >This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the >review. > >This is a generally well-written draft that expands considerably on the >brief >deployment considerations for DS-Lite in Appendix A of RFC 6333. The >draft >is clear and reasonably well-written, and a significant improvement on >that >RFC 6333 Appendix, although an understanding of RFC 6333 is necessary to >understand this draft, which seems completely reasonable. > >The B4 and AFTR acronyms are clever - kudos to whomever came up with >those. > >I found five open issues, all of which are minor. > >Minor Issues: > >[1] Ironically, the first issue is that something should be said about >the relationship of this draft to Appendix A of RFC 6333. It probably >suffices to say that this draft expands on the material in that Appendix, >as I see no need to specify that this draft updates RFC 6333 solely to >change non-normative material in an Appendix. [YL] In "Overview", we will add: "This document expands Appendix A of RFC6333 and discusses various DS-Lite deployment considerations for operators." > >[2] The MTU increase technique in Section 2.2 is a "may", which is >consistent with Section 5.3 of RFC 6333. OTOH, Section 2.2 of this >draft should also discuss the AFTR resource exhaustion concern that >described in Section 6.3 of RFC 6333, as that is a potential >operational reason for an ISP to increase MTU size (e.g., if customer >sourcing of large IPv4 packets is not sufficiently rare). [YL] In 2.2, we will add: "Note that reassembly at Tunnel Exit-Point is resource intensive. A large number of B4 may terminate on the same AFTR. If many B4 fragment the packets, it would increase sufficient load to the AFTR for reassembly. We recommend the operator should increase the MTU size of the IPv6 network between B4 and AFTR to avoid fragmentation." > >[3] Section 2.7 refers to "the AFTR's internal interface". There may be >two internal interfaces, the physical IPv6 interface (outer header) and >the tunnel's IPv4 interface (inner header). The text should be clarified >to indicate which interface is involved - it appears that the AFTR's >physical IPv6 interface is intended in this section. [YL] We replace "internal" to "IPv6" > >[4] Section 2.7 cites RFC 6333 for use of DHCPv6 with DS-Lite. RFC 6334 >should be cited - either in addition to or instead of RFC 6333. [YL] Fixed > >[5] Section 2.8 discusses IPv4 accounting at the AFTR, but notes that >"the AFTR does not have detailed customer identity information." Does >that create a theft of service possibility? If so, that possibility >should be mentioned as a security consideration. Also, Section 2.8 >ought to be expanded with a sentence or two explaining why the AFTR >does not have that identity information, and in particular to explain >whether and why it is unreasonable in some or all cases to expect >that customer identity information be provided to the AFTR as part >of provisioning each customer's softwire. [YL] Good catch. Actually I believe AFTR "does" have both IPv4 and IPv6 to identify the customer. I suggest we remove "but it will potentially introduce some additional complexity because the AFTR does not have detailed customer identity information." > >Nits: > >Section 2.3 on MTU Considerations could usefully mention MTU discovery >techniques, as possibilities for customer IPv4 traffic to adapt to a >smaller IPv4 MTU. If this is done, it would be useful to mention >RFC 4821 in addition to the mention of RFC 1191 in RFC 6333. [YL] We would consider RFC 4821. However, the challenge is I don't have information how many current OS support RFC 4821. Since DS-lite is a transition technology, it would be unreasonable to ask the OS company to implement RFC 4821 for DS-lite. > >Section 2.4 should define "lawful intercept". It would be helpful to >cite a reference for this concept if something appropriate can be found. [YL] We will find whether there is any reference to this concept. If we can't find any, we would add an explanation in the draft. > >Section 2.5: >- Are one or both types of logging recommended? [YL] We tempted to recommend source-specific log. However, some regulators require to use both and the regulations vary country from country, this is why we left it open and let the operators to decide. >- Last paragraph on p.4, "timestamped log" is not a good verb phrase. > "maintain a timestamped log of" would be a better replacement. [YL] Fixed >- Last paragraph in section, where is the batch file sent? [YL] We will add: "The files may be compressed before transferring to a repository server to better utilize bandwidth and storage." > >In Section 2.7, I'm having a hard time understanding which traffic is >intended to be subject to the Outgoing Policies and the Incoming Policies. >Expanding each of those two bullets to explain what traffic is subject >to each class of policies would help. [YL] Does this help? Outgoing Policies apply to packets originating from B4 to IPv4 network. Incoming Policies apply to packets originating from IPv4 network to B4. > >Section 3.2.2.2 uses 192.0.0.2/32 as an example IP address for the >B4. That section should also cross-reference Section 5.7 on RFC 6333 >on IP address assignment to B4s, as other IP addresses may be used. [YL] Added the cite. > >idnits 2.12.13 found a tiny nit - draft-ietf-pcp-base is now at >version 28. [YL] Fixed. > >Thanks, >--David >---------------------------------------------------- >David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer >EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 >+1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 >david.black@emc.com Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 >---------------------------------------------------- > > --B_3433351583_493034 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 IENBAhEAzuhISIgzOwSitfbc2LN4WDAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoF0wIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFMMH sMOZ10JTh9owhxBX+FD1xKU7MBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcN AQkFMQ8XDTEyMTAxODAwNDYyMlowDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQAEggEAVXCxAZKhMeCjLddBOMAc euaqgybURvaW20hpdAFWozQtHwiE4PuiVqDfyXb2yUkarjFljj7hCe5skRPcCVpfRzmjzXwy +W5TQf1Slf431sNvR2xy5AW2NP57EnbGu1s7Mtvy5PC1eNBa68NS3Sxofveh1PJho7ca/E6m dY+IsVuHgjgx3HpAhbehKLEhJ48pWXc9eygaYc94SUhjfWFKVPeY7h43LN4/hDsvOQVpFbcO 4Tv3UiBrr7XDuRHPEKnwMuh0RGP9JePzKB+/QSMfjzUf3J3UT0nZe2ZDQvCX0S51Jq9vies8 wLPlTa+1QYlkVcgQkJb7A5vTvhRgmBsF+A== --B_3433351583_493034-- From leaf.y.yeh@huawei.com Wed Oct 17 19:13:56 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 C368621F84FD for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 19:13:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.484 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.484 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.115, 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 s0OEQgBQRYnd for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 19:13:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9ADE21F84FC for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 19:13:54 -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 ALS76278; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 02:13:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 03:12:30 +0100 Received: from SZXEML412-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.91) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 03:13:20 +0100 Received: from SZXEML546-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.192]) by szxeml412-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.91]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:13:17 +0800 From: Leaf yeh To: "Poscic, Kristian (Kristian)" , "softwires@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: DMR in map-T ; draft-ietf-softwire-map-t-00 Thread-Index: Ac2stTcB5vkzJps8TRemVyieYB1RoQAICjog Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 02:13:16 +0000 Message-ID: References: <7921F977B17D5B49B8DCC955A339D2F003C574@US70TWXCHMBA11.zam.alcatel-lucent.com> In-Reply-To: <7921F977B17D5B49B8DCC955A339D2F003C574@US70TWXCHMBA11.zam.alcatel-lucent.com> 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="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: Re: [Softwires] DMR in map-T ; draft-ietf-softwire-map-t-00 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, 18 Oct 2012 02:13:56 -0000 Kris - map-T the BR terminates the prefix instead of an addr? Yes, that is also my read from the drafts of MAP. Best Regards, Leaf From: softwires-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] On Beh= alf Of Poscic, Kristian (Kristian) Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 6:18 AM To: softwires@ietf.org Subject: [Softwires] DMR in map-T ; draft-ietf-softwire-map-t-00 Need a quick clarification in regards to DMR in map-t: - In map-E the BR addresses is part of DMR. So the packet will be sent dire= ctly to the BR IPv6 address. Dest IPv4 as originated by the CE doesn't have= to be encoded in IPv6 dest addr since the BR can figure out the dest IPv4 = from the encapsulated IPv4 packet. Consequently the de-capsulated IPv4 pack= et will be forwarded to the IPv4 network. - But in map-T the DMR does not contain the DR IPv6 add but instead the pre= fix. Since the IPv4 dest will be encoded in the dest IPv6 address, the BR m= ust now accept all possible IPv6 addresses as long as the prefix matches th= at of the BR. Since the original IPv4 packet is not encapsulated in map-t, = the BR will look at the dest IPv4 encoded in IPv6 dest address, assuming th= at the BR terminates the prefix now and not the IP addr itself. Is this how= this is envisioned, that in map-T the BR terminates the prefix instead of = an addr? Thanks, Kris=20 From internet-drafts@ietf.org Wed Oct 17 22:35:18 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 215EA21F8607; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 22:35:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.559 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.040, 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 1sunI8j22J7E; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 22:35:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85C7321F858E; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 22:35:17 -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: <20121018053517.4321.90951.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 22:35:17 -0700 Cc: softwires@ietf.org Subject: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-04.txt X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:35:18 -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 : Delivery of IPv4 Multicast Services to IPv4 Clients over= an IPv6 Multicast Network Author(s) : Jacni Qin Mohamed Boucadair Christian Jacquenet Yiu L. Lee Qian Wang Filename : draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-04.txt Pages : 20 Date : 2012-10-17 Abstract: This document specifies a solution for the delivery of IPv4 multicast services to IPv4 clients over an IPv6 multicast network. The solution relies upon a stateless IPv4-in-IPv6 encapsulation scheme and uses the IPv6 multicast distribution tree to deliver IPv4 multicast traffic. The solution is particularly useful for the delivery of multicast service offerings to DS-Lite serviced customers. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-04 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-04 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From mohamed.boucadair@orange.com Wed Oct 17 22:37:52 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 1729D21F860D for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 22:37:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.124 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.124 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.124, 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 PDMaOvUs6c4J for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 22:37:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias92.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C564F21F8607 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 22:37:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omfedm07.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.3]) by omfedm12.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 8185218C47A for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:37:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from PUEXCH11.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.27]) by omfedm07.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 6AEB44C015 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:37:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.8]) by PUEXCH11.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.27]) with mapi; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:37:49 +0200 From: To: "softwires@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:37:48 +0200 Thread-Topic: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-02.txt Thread-Index: Ac2rr2btX9AWuuoxSiikNxlsl3TtlQBQxPFg Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E64431C88@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> References: <20121016150323.24836.51775.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20121016150323.24836.51775.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> 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: 2012.10.18.30327 Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-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, 18 Oct 2012 05:37:52 -0000 Dear all, A new version was submitted with the following change: * Remove a normative reference.=20 We believe this version is ready for a WGLC. Cheers, Med >-----Message d'origine----- >De : softwires-bounces@ietf.org=20 >[mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de=20 >internet-drafts@ietf.org >Envoy=E9 : mardi 16 octobre 2012 17:03 >=C0 : i-d-announce@ietf.org >Cc : softwires@ietf.org >Objet : [Softwires] I-D Action:=20 >draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-02.txt > > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line=20 >Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the Softwires Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : DHCPv6 Option for IPv4-Embedded=20 >Multicast and Unicast IPv6 Prefixes > Author(s) : Mohamed Boucadair > Jacni Qin > Tina Tsou > Xiaohong Deng > Filename :=20 >draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-02.txt > Pages : 7 > Date : 2012-10-16 > >Abstract: > This document defines Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol version 6 > (DHCPv6) Option for multicast transition solutions, aiming to convey > the IPv6 prefixes to be used to build unicast and multicast IPv4- > embedded IPv6 addresses. > > >The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-multicast- >prefix-option > >There's also a htmlized version available at: >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix >-option-02 > >A diff from the previous version is available at: >http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-softwire-multicast- >prefix-option-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 mohamed.boucadair@orange.com Wed Oct 17 22:50:52 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 099E121F8643 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 22:50:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.126 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.126 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.122, 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 W6qQh8d4DxBX for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 22:50:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3316D21F85F7 for ; Wed, 17 Oct 2012 22:50:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.4]) by omfedm11.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id CD2A33B41F1 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:50:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from puexch31.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.29]) by omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id B338E238056 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:50:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.8]) by puexch31.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.29]) with mapi; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:50:47 +0200 From: To: "softwires@ietf.org" Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:50:46 +0200 Thread-Topic: I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-04.txt Thread-Index: Ac2s8mbSgDRHQ5HwTyeR9Wo3Y97MBwAALtCQ Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E64431C8E@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> References: <20121018053517.4321.90951.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20121018053517.4321.90951.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> 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: 2012.10.18.30327 Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-04.txt X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:50:52 -0000 Dear all, We submitted an updated version to resolve one open issue for the draft. Th= e main changes are: * Remove a normative reference * Add a new section to describe how address translation is done. * Updated the examples to make use of the IPv6 address block defined in RFC= 6676. A detailed diff is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-i= etf-softwire-dslite-multicast-04. As suggested by Stig, a message was sent to mboned ML (http://www.ietf.org/= mail-archive/web/mboned/current/msg01725.html). We believe this version solves the technical comments raised during WGLC an= d also against -03. There was a request from Behcet to add some normative references to the dra= ft but this was not accepted (see the mailing list archives).=20 Cheers, Med >-----Message d'origine----- >De : i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org=20 >[mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de=20 >internet-drafts@ietf.org >Envoy=E9 : jeudi 18 octobre 2012 07:35 >=C0 : i-d-announce@ietf.org >Cc : softwires@ietf.org >Objet : I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-04.txt > > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line=20 >Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the Softwires Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : Delivery of IPv4 Multicast Services=20 >to IPv4 Clients over an IPv6 Multicast Network > Author(s) : Jacni Qin > Mohamed Boucadair > Christian Jacquenet > Yiu L. Lee > Qian Wang > Filename : draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-04.txt > Pages : 20 > Date : 2012-10-17 > >Abstract: > This document specifies a solution for the delivery of IPv4=20 >multicast > services to IPv4 clients over an IPv6 multicast network. The > solution relies upon a stateless IPv4-in-IPv6 encapsulation scheme > and uses the IPv6 multicast distribution tree to deliver IPv4 > multicast traffic. The solution is particularly useful for the > delivery of multicast service offerings to DS-Lite serviced > customers. > > >The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast > >There's also a htmlized version available at: >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-04 > >A diff from the previous version is available at: >http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mul >ticast-04 > > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > >_______________________________________________ >I-D-Announce mailing list >I-D-Announce@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce >Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt >= From yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com Thu Oct 18 05:29:16 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 A0E1021F8618; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:29:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.109 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.109 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.212, BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, 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 ZTTy9bLOhn0U; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:29:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cable.comcast.com (pacdcavout01.cable.comcast.com [69.241.43.119]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2862221F85F4; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:29:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([24.40.56.115]) by pacdcavout01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP id 97wm3m1.30860935; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 08:22:04 -0400 Received: from PACDCEXMB05.cable.comcast.com ([169.254.7.147]) by PACDCEXHUB02.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::492e:3fa1:c2ad:e04e%13]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 08:29:10 -0400 From: "Lee, Yiu" To: "Black, David" , "roberta.maglione@telecomitalia.it" , "carlw@mcsr-labs.org" , "christian.jacquenet@orange.com" , "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" , "gen-art@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-deployment-06 Thread-Index: AQHNrSwstZEiPeUY0EatIphU3ATEWA== Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:29:09 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE7120DFAF3B9@MX15A.corp.emc.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: [24.40.55.70] Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="B_3433393748_19694" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "softwires@ietf.org" , "ietf@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Softwires] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-deployment-06 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, 18 Oct 2012 12:29:16 -0000 --B_3433393748_19694 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Thanks David! I will apply your changes to the next version. On 10/17/12 9:11 PM, "Black, David" wrote: >Yiu, > >Thank you for your responses - most of them look fine, and in >particular anything that I don't comment on here is acceptable to me. > >> [YL] In 2.2, we will add: >> >> "Note that reassembly at Tunnel Exit-Point is resource >> intensive. A large number of B4 may terminate on the same AFTR. If >>many B4 >> fragment the packets, it would increase sufficient load to the AFTR for >> reassembly. We recommend the operator should increase the MTU size of >>the IPv6 >> network between B4 and AFTR to avoid fragmentation." > >I would change "is" to "may be" in the first line. > >> >[5] Section 2.8 discusses IPv4 accounting at the AFTR, but notes that >> >"the AFTR does not have detailed customer identity information." Does >> >that create a theft of service possibility? If so, that possibility >> >should be mentioned as a security consideration. Also, Section 2.8 >> >ought to be expanded with a sentence or two explaining why the AFTR >> >does not have that identity information, and in particular to explain >> >whether and why it is unreasonable in some or all cases to expect >> >that customer identity information be provided to the AFTR as part >> >of provisioning each customer's softwire. >> >> [YL] Good catch. Actually I believe AFTR "does" have both IPv4 and IPv6 >>to >> identify the customer. I suggest we remove >> >> "but it will potentially introduce some additional complexity because >> the AFTR does not have detailed customer identity information." > >That's definitely an easy way to address that issue, and it's fine with >me. > >> >Section 2.3 on MTU Considerations could usefully mention MTU discovery >> >techniques, as possibilities for customer IPv4 traffic to adapt to a >> >smaller IPv4 MTU. If this is done, it would be useful to mention >> >RFC 4821 in addition to the mention of RFC 1191 in RFC 6333. >> >> [YL] We would consider RFC 4821. However, the challenge is I don't have >> information how many current OS support RFC 4821. Since DS-lite is a >> transition technology, it would be unreasonable to ask the OS company to >> implement RFC 4821 for DS-lite. > >That's ok - this was a nit. > >> >- Are one or both types of logging recommended? >> >> [YL] We tempted to recommend source-specific log. However, some >>regulators >> require to use both and the regulations vary country from country, this >>is >> why we left it open and let the operators to decide. > >Please add a version of your explanation to the draft. > >> >In Section 2.7, I'm having a hard time understanding which traffic is >> >intended to be subject to the Outgoing Policies and the Incoming >>Policies. >> >Expanding each of those two bullets to explain what traffic is subject >> >to each class of policies would help. >> >> [YL] Does this help? >> >> Outgoing Policies apply to packets originating from B4 to IPv4 network. >> Incoming Policies apply to packets originating from IPv4 network to B4. > >Yes, that's clearer, although the B4 is not the network endpoint for any >of that traffic. I suggest: > >Outgoing Policies apply to packets originating from behind the B4 with >a destination on the IPv4 network. > >Incoming Policies apply to packets originating from the IPv4 network to >a destination behind the B4. > >Thanks, >--David > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Lee, Yiu [mailto:Yiu_Lee@cable.comcast.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 8:46 PM >> To: Black, David; roberta.maglione@telecomitalia.it; >>carlw@mcsr-labs.org; >> christian.jacquenet@orange.com; mohamed.boucadair@orange.com; >>gen-art@ietf.org >> Cc: softwires@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; Ralph Droms >> Subject: Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-deployment-06 >> >> Hi David, >> >> Thanks very much for review the draft. Comments inline. >> >> Thanks, >> Yiu >> >> On 10/15/12 7:10 PM, "Black, David" wrote: >> >> >I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on >> >Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at >> >. >> > >> >Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments >> >you may receive. >> > >> >Document: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-deployment-06 >> >Reviewer: David L. Black >> >Review Date: October 15, 2012 >> >IETF LC End Date: October 16, 2012 >> >IESG Telechat Date: October 25, 2012 >> > >> >Summary: >> > >> >This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the >> >review. >> > >> >This is a generally well-written draft that expands considerably on >>the brief >> >deployment considerations for DS-Lite in Appendix A of RFC 6333. The >>draft >> >is clear and reasonably well-written, and a significant improvement on >>that >> >RFC 6333 Appendix, although an understanding of RFC 6333 is necessary >>to >> >understand this draft, which seems completely reasonable. >> > >> >The B4 and AFTR acronyms are clever - kudos to whomever came up with >> >those. >> > >> >I found five open issues, all of which are minor. >> > >> >Minor Issues: >> > >> >[1] Ironically, the first issue is that something should be said about >> >the relationship of this draft to Appendix A of RFC 6333. It probably >> >suffices to say that this draft expands on the material in that >>Appendix, >> >as I see no need to specify that this draft updates RFC 6333 solely to >> >change non-normative material in an Appendix. >> >> [YL] In "Overview", we will add: >> >> "This document expands Appendix A of RFC6333 and discusses various >> DS-Lite deployment considerations for operators." >> >> > >> >[2] The MTU increase technique in Section 2.2 is a "may", which is >> >consistent with Section 5.3 of RFC 6333. OTOH, Section 2.2 of this >> >draft should also discuss the AFTR resource exhaustion concern that >> >described in Section 6.3 of RFC 6333, as that is a potential >> >operational reason for an ISP to increase MTU size (e.g., if customer >> >sourcing of large IPv4 packets is not sufficiently rare). >> >> [YL] In 2.2, we will add: >> >> "Note that reassembly at Tunnel Exit-Point is resource >> intensive. A large number of B4 may terminate on the same AFTR. If >>many B4 >> fragment the packets, it would increase sufficient load to the AFTR for >> reassembly. We recommend the operator should increase the MTU size of >>the IPv6 >> network between B4 and AFTR to avoid fragmentation." >> >> > >> >[3] Section 2.7 refers to "the AFTR's internal interface". There may >>be >> >two internal interfaces, the physical IPv6 interface (outer header) and >> >the tunnel's IPv4 interface (inner header). The text should be >>clarified >> >to indicate which interface is involved - it appears that the AFTR's >> >physical IPv6 interface is intended in this section. >> >> [YL] We replace "internal" to "IPv6" >> >> > >> >[4] Section 2.7 cites RFC 6333 for use of DHCPv6 with DS-Lite. RFC >>6334 >> >should be cited - either in addition to or instead of RFC 6333. >> >> [YL] Fixed >> >> > >> >[5] Section 2.8 discusses IPv4 accounting at the AFTR, but notes that >> >"the AFTR does not have detailed customer identity information." Does >> >that create a theft of service possibility? If so, that possibility >> >should be mentioned as a security consideration. Also, Section 2.8 >> >ought to be expanded with a sentence or two explaining why the AFTR >> >does not have that identity information, and in particular to explain >> >whether and why it is unreasonable in some or all cases to expect >> >that customer identity information be provided to the AFTR as part >> >of provisioning each customer's softwire. >> >> [YL] Good catch. Actually I believe AFTR "does" have both IPv4 and IPv6 >>to >> identify the customer. I suggest we remove >> >> "but it will potentially introduce some additional complexity because >> the AFTR does not have detailed customer identity information." >> >> > >> >Nits: >> > >> >Section 2.3 on MTU Considerations could usefully mention MTU discovery >> >techniques, as possibilities for customer IPv4 traffic to adapt to a >> >smaller IPv4 MTU. If this is done, it would be useful to mention >> >RFC 4821 in addition to the mention of RFC 1191 in RFC 6333. >> >> [YL] We would consider RFC 4821. However, the challenge is I don't have >> information how many current OS support RFC 4821. Since DS-lite is a >> transition technology, it would be unreasonable to ask the OS company to >> implement RFC 4821 for DS-lite. >> >> > >> >Section 2.4 should define "lawful intercept". It would be helpful to >> >cite a reference for this concept if something appropriate can be >>found. >> >> [YL] We will find whether there is any reference to this concept. If we >> can't find any, we would add an explanation in the draft. >> >> > >> >Section 2.5: >> >- Are one or both types of logging recommended? >> >> [YL] We tempted to recommend source-specific log. However, some >>regulators >> require to use both and the regulations vary country from country, this >>is >> why we left it open and let the operators to decide. >> >> >- Last paragraph on p.4, "timestamped log" is not a good verb phrase. >> > "maintain a timestamped log of" would be a better replacement. >> >> [YL] Fixed >> >> >- Last paragraph in section, where is the batch file sent? >> >> [YL] We will add: >> >> "The files may be compressed before transferring to a repository server >> to better utilize bandwidth and storage." >> >> >> > >> >In Section 2.7, I'm having a hard time understanding which traffic is >> >intended to be subject to the Outgoing Policies and the Incoming >>Policies. >> >Expanding each of those two bullets to explain what traffic is subject >> >to each class of policies would help. >> >> [YL] Does this help? >> >> Outgoing Policies apply to packets originating from B4 to IPv4 network. >> Incoming Policies apply to packets originating from IPv4 network to B4. >> >> >> >> > >> >Section 3.2.2.2 uses 192.0.0.2/32 as an example IP address for the >> >B4. That section should also cross-reference Section 5.7 on RFC 6333 >> >on IP address assignment to B4s, as other IP addresses may be used. >> >> [YL] Added the cite. >> >> > >> >idnits 2.12.13 found a tiny nit - draft-ietf-pcp-base is now at >> >version 28. >> >> [YL] Fixed. >> >> > >> >Thanks, >> >--David >> >---------------------------------------------------- >> >David L. Black, Distinguished Engineer >> >EMC Corporation, 176 South St., Hopkinton, MA 01748 >> >+1 (508) 293-7953 FAX: +1 (508) 293-7786 >> >david.black@emc.com Mobile: +1 (978) 394-7754 >> >---------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > --B_3433393748_19694 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 IENBAhEAzuhISIgzOwSitfbc2LN4WDAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoF0wIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFGkn nJBZtnpog7FZj5U6Qx+BLJFVMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcN AQkFMQ8XDTEyMTAxODEyMjkwN1owDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQAEggEAhqU5Lp5+wPE+aK5lPOnX UW8gQG+BDt7ck9adN8TNr6ZBxLONPEDZDtYes5TuMyLnXaPqPH/fx0KuhsQZz/iNUiuRiAv2 ijEn9Q74BRAftfmFwX5L71HJf3l/g04+GoTB8u5UM1IUVwiXhqExsgGsF7CNPN9g6aA9BBF9 he0ud9aEWFEEdlhhImS715fUmi2Tod5rzTT9+Es3kW1lHCliEsfzsmGbYdq18GFje7lDLlGB z67zY/j3DzXInR5dnXWr2fdjkgOrOsj/zhckt6k9spUlI1e4SSO4UoaP5NQTRXYMz/A7R0RZ PdFLnT1aKHCcmFQ7uL6/gPfjUyFNZTFrbw== --B_3433393748_19694-- From Ted.Lemon@nominum.com Thu Oct 18 05:51:09 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 0821D21F87E3 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:51:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.484 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.484 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.115, 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 AH3gRfjd2KLJ for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:51:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og118.obsmtp.com (exprod7og118.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B241A21F87DB for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:51:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob118.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUH/7O2Ixgkk5JSAaWuNQEr67L6xWze6r@postini.com; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:51:07 PDT Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF5691B804A for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:51:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E66E619005C; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:51:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com) Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.131]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:51:06 -0700 From: Ted Lemon To: "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" Thread-Topic: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-02.txt Thread-Index: AQHNrPK5l6L45UAFfEe18Wwb4HNzh5e/eeuA Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:51:05 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20121016150323.24836.51775.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E64431C88@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> In-Reply-To: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E64431C88@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <3D1F4D89E56F8645BF646046EFF20199@nominum.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "softwires@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-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, 18 Oct 2012 12:51:09 -0000 In review in the DHC working group (which just started!), Bernie Volz point= ed out that you've defined yet another format for IPv6 prefixes in DHCPv6 o= ptions, and requests that you use one of the two existing formats. I also notice that it appears that you have a fixed-format option, but some= parts of the option may or may not appear depending on server configuratio= n, and that if they do not appear, the option merely has a shorter length. = This is contrary to the way things are normally done in DHCP servers, and= will require special UI or configuration file tweaks to get right. It would be better if each of the three optional fields in the option were = simply its own option. Is there some strong reason why all three of these= fields need to be in the same DHCP option? From mohamed.boucadair@orange.com Thu Oct 18 05:59:37 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 269EA21F8653 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:59:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.128 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.128 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.120, 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 fhsaTvI0UOXK for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:59:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 541ED21F8652 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:59:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omfedm05.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.1]) by omfedm14.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 9574C22C58B; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:59:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from PUEXCH81.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.34]) by omfedm05.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 7BA9A35C045; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:59:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.8]) by PUEXCH81.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.34]) with mapi; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:59:35 +0200 From: To: Ted Lemon Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:59:33 +0200 Thread-Topic: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-02.txt Thread-Index: AQHNrPK5l6L45UAFfEe18Wwb4HNzh5e/eeuA//+LPeA= Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E64431F0B@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> References: <20121016150323.24836.51775.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E64431C88@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: fr-FR Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: fr-FR Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2012.10.18.113319 Cc: "softwires@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-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, 18 Oct 2012 12:59:37 -0000 Dear Ted, Please see inline. Cheers, Med >-----Message d'origine----- >De : Ted Lemon [mailto:Ted.Lemon@nominum.com]=20 >Envoy=E9 : jeudi 18 octobre 2012 14:51 >=C0 : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN >Cc : softwires@ietf.org >Objet : Re: [Softwires] I-D Action:=20 >draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-02.txt > >In review in the DHC working group (which just started!),=20 Med: As a reminder, I have sent a notification to DHC to review this draft = (April 2012). Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/cu= rrent/msg12575.html.=20 >Bernie Volz pointed out that you've defined yet another format=20 >for IPv6 prefixes in DHCPv6 options, and requests that you use=20 >one of the two existing formats. > >I also notice that it appears that you have a fixed-format=20 >option, but some parts of the option may or may not appear=20 >depending on server configuration, and that if they do not=20 >appear, the option merely has a shorter length. This is=20 >contrary to the way things are normally done in DHCP servers,=20 >and will require special UI or configuration file tweaks to get right. Med: I can change this easily if you think we need to do so. We use a fixed= length because: * SSM_PREFIX64 and ASM_PREFIX64 are /96 * U_PREFIX64 follows RFC6052; it may have variable length with a maximum be= ing /96. > >It would be better if each of the three optional fields in the=20 >option were simply its own option. Is there some strong=20 >reason why all three of these fields need to be in the same=20 >DHCP option? Med: I have provided an answer to this question here (http://www.ietf.org/m= ail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg12577.html; and given I didn't received an= answer from your side I thought you were fine with my explanation. From pengwu.thu@gmail.com Thu Oct 18 10:05:08 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 CE31F21F879E for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:05:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.509 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.509 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.090, 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 rvgUWG8I9UN0 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:05:08 -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 D81AD21F86DC for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:05:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vb0-f44.google.com with SMTP id fc26so10105356vbb.31 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:05:00 -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=i9vDXoP5or/gpyYRUhUoyf4qlPJY9aLuI1mPzaRS5mg=; b=FGss8lGymvsm0dwbW4QwxiUm9WnpehhonBWHnIeXEMyh5E14STNtuCsoASEvqeRxHG sgpDIh9oykmdULo4raw2nz42fGB/VQdtiXfITmf8i15nCa3foKyA162aiTkE9OrHy1kP U4xB9xfEQadRA88N86DqEuAs3skXOjqwANK14VcEmJQy3zPkCO8aQITCmpn1SKO5axcO um3R79KobtR3uZ8DrqU1OkagooaooGWt+YInJPyftjE3nk0wkCKtk2RmnmYQpdjhBLvu H/hEbeeaVdwMWGURi/WawnNH5HPG6ceMQANJ7SaTjWAXoIQpEFh1aM0f0A+blUiw7rWf M9wA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.150.134 with SMTP id y6mr6486846vcv.20.1350579899925; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:04:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.58.163.102 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:04:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 01:04:59 +0800 Message-ID: From: Peng Wu To: Yong Cui , suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Softwires WG Subject: Re: [Softwires] Call for presentation in IETF 85 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, 18 Oct 2012 17:05:08 -0000 Hi chairs, (Peng Wu, Lightweight 4over6: An Extension to the DS-Lite Architecture, http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite/,10min) On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Yong Cui wrote: > Hi folks, > > We will have two sessions in the coming IETF meeting > in Atlanta according to the preliminary agenda: > 1) Afternoon Session I on Tuesday (2h); > 2) Afternoon Session I on Wednesday (1.5h). > > Please send your request to Suresh and me in the following > format by Oct. 20 if you would like to have a time slot: > > (name, title, link to IETF datatracker, minutes requested). > > > Thanks, > > Yong & Suresh > > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires From Ted.Lemon@nominum.com Thu Oct 18 10:48:35 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 C977921F844B for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:48:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.493 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.493 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.106, 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 CboeH4zvf55d for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:48:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og123.obsmtp.com (exprod7og123.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.24]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C76DD21F8445 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:48:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob123.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUIBA8nAgqPWvBjSjQ4/HYb1Js1fZaHmU@postini.com; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:48:34 PDT Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DF6A1B834B for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:48:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0514619005C; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:48:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com) Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:48:34 -0700 From: Ted Lemon To: "mohamed.boucadair@orange.com" Thread-Topic: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-02.txt Thread-Index: AQHNrPK5l6L45UAFfEe18Wwb4HNzh5e/eeuA//+LPeCAAMffAA== Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 17:48:33 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20121016150323.24836.51775.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E64431C88@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E64431F0B@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> In-Reply-To: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E64431F0B@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "softwires@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-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, 18 Oct 2012 17:48:35 -0000 On Oct 18, 2012, at 8:59 AM, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote: > Med: I have provided an answer to this question here (http://www.ietf.org= /mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg12577.html; and given I didn't received = an answer from your side I thought you were fine with my explanation. Yes, thanks for the reminder. That does make sense. From sarikaya2012@gmail.com Thu Oct 18 12:40:31 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 54D1921F889F for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:40:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.515 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.515 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.084, 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 jRqNlUdQbUBd for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:40:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18BB121F877B for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:40:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ob0-f172.google.com with SMTP id v19so10741510obq.31 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:40:16 -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; bh=zdYTenc761UbO44OVzwgjFhXLJ0UUJ23Ow0SATYEGDY=; b=wN6sWTkAu1kZTwkzeMysOc5T5S2fb0BPpIgGTZZ4h0vuGMPkdpTFrBgJ2P551CbI5l He5AdGpfobSvnxSnQDievP1bYMcmdXUQAZs0855thwlGJCk0A/3DUO1GI/kATx/61+RL /xcAaRa0yA595Qc9ryOotlqjU6R2fI0pW6MXCPMh+faZHX0yR5i9DVJrtQ8P0p70rHML WGQByS78BwV7+cCo+TDrk4IZqbybQ1OhUbQAFGz5YrJnhL5GT2KVRn2Xp31u7d4Fir0g 0gnNA9pDvC/L4EqpYUceKFKfqe0rtM561Uptj+Ug/snW1fdGd34syaAJ9jO1VyOvUt+3 UusA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.115.40 with SMTP id jl8mr1522330obb.97.1350589216745; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:40:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.60.160.176 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:40:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E64431C8E@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> References: <20121018053517.4321.90951.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E64431C8E@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:40:16 -0500 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "softwires@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-04.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, 18 Oct 2012 19:40:31 -0000 Hi all, On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:50 AM, wrote: > Dear all, > > We submitted an updated version to resolve one open issue for the draft. The main changes are: > > * Remove a normative reference > * Add a new section to describe how address translation is done. > * Updated the examples to make use of the IPv6 address block defined in RFC6676. > > A detailed diff is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-04. > > As suggested by Stig, a message was sent to mboned ML (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mboned/current/msg01725.html). > > We believe this version solves the technical comments raised during WGLC and also against -03. > > There was a request from Behcet to add some normative references to the draft but this was not accepted (see the mailing list archives). > I don't remember what this refers to. But I do remember that this draft does not consider a very significant case: IPv6 network may not be multicast enabled. If this issue is resolved (it could be resolved by accepting another solution, because more than one solution may be accepted for a given problem/charter item) then my issues with this draft will be resolved. Regards, Behcet From chenycmx@gmail.com Thu Oct 18 20:03:07 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 F1EAA1F0C4C for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 20:03:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.753 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.753 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.908, 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 xtfSzE0BJ44I for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 20:03:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-f44.google.com (mail-pa0-f44.google.com [209.85.220.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F9EE21F8440 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 20:03:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id fb11so11980pad.31 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 20:03:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:reply-to:subject:references:x-priority:x-guid :x-has-attach:x-mailer:mime-version:message-id:content-type; bh=6VEXVvZrIzbYv2e7uFcfCAbT6UsQESdmhn0rM7flf70=; b=UHR36Mrh5SkVRv0HQlfImjjyUpxc5uzIKjzo+J0/CYZ/C7CvTrqrMnnQg1aKFI2tcR /5JlwyeHvUXVtTpuV4gFtwno+xP4tacSLwTWAo+1YQsvMrjoBN+sID90j6cX+qCTZnGL mqqEkutcfMptZLzmLx2kGdK34lWDp669zNeK8XhPban37rWg5BII6eaDAJLYjiEVV/wr ZJj2Ao+xJu+GICKErHFgrwRecjnd6P/6yV+3f2EyiO8jaJ7cOyF6BcixPAoG8Rl4TwC1 +gl5dpup/uLLafIsgVA9IezJ4Y+1qcLUUkcqtvJy3yX6o9BgSzFG+rPp3+VTHPQA+ror cQ9A== Received: by 10.68.131.40 with SMTP id oj8mr1141592pbb.40.1350615786266; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 20:03:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from flashfox-PC ([114.255.41.142]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id mt15sm463217pbc.49.2012.10.18.20.03.02 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 18 Oct 2012 20:03:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:03:02 +0800 From: "Yuchi Chen" To: "Yong Cui" , suresh.krishnan References: X-Priority: 3 X-GUID: F7108B4B-4A43-408D-8082-8A18FB60DE49 X-Has-Attach: no X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.0.1.90[cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <201210191102589347086@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart352865203531_=----" Cc: softwires WG Subject: Re: [Softwires] Call for presentation in IETF 85 X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: chenycmx List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 03:03:07 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_001_NextPart352865203531_=---- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SGkgY2hhaXJzLA0KDQooWXVjaGkgQ2hlbiwgU29mdHdpcmUgTWVzaCBNYW5hZ2VtZW50IEluZm9y bWF0aW9uIEJhc2UoTUlCKSwNCmh0dHA6Ly9kYXRhdHJhY2tlci5pZXRmLm9yZy9kb2MvZHJhZnQt aWV0Zi1zb2Z0d2lyZS1tZXNoLW1pYi8gLDUgbWluKQ0KDQpCZXN0IHJlZ2FyZHMhDQoNCg0KDQpZ dWNoaSBDaGVuDQoNCkZyb206IFlvbmcgQ3VpDQpEYXRlOiAyMDEyLTEwLTExIDE1OjQ3DQpUbzog U29mdHdpcmVzIFdHDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBbU29mdHdpcmVzXSBDYWxsIGZvciBwcmVzZW50YXRpb24g aW4gSUVURiA4NQ0KSGkgZm9sa3MsDQoNCldlIHdpbGwgaGF2ZSB0d28gc2Vzc2lvbnMgaW4gdGhl IGNvbWluZyBJRVRGIG1lZXRpbmcNCmluIEF0bGFudGEgYWNjb3JkaW5nIHRvIHRoZSBwcmVsaW1p bmFyeSBhZ2VuZGE6DQoxKSBBZnRlcm5vb24gU2Vzc2lvbiBJIG9uIFR1ZXNkYXkgKDJoKTsNCjIp IEFmdGVybm9vbiBTZXNzaW9uIEkgb24gV2VkbmVzZGF5ICgxLjVoKS4NCg0KUGxlYXNlIHNlbmQg eW91ciByZXF1ZXN0IHRvIFN1cmVzaCBhbmQgbWUgaW4gdGhlIGZvbGxvd2luZw0KZm9ybWF0IGJ5 IE9jdC4gMjAgaWYgeW91IHdvdWxkIGxpa2UgdG8gaGF2ZSBhIHRpbWUgc2xvdDoNCg0KKG5hbWUs IHRpdGxlLCBsaW5rIHRvIElFVEYgZGF0YXRyYWNrZXIsIG1pbnV0ZXMgcmVxdWVzdGVkKS4NCg0K DQpUaGFua3MsDQoNCllvbmcgJiBTdXJlc2gNCg0KDQpfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KU29mdHdpcmVzIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KU29mdHdpcmVz QGlldGYub3JnDQpodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL3NvZnR3aXJl cw== ------=_001_NextPart352865203531_=---- Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi chairs,
 
(Yuchi=20 Chen, Softwire Mesh Management Information=20 Base(MIB),
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-= softwire-mesh-mib/=20 ,5 min)
 
Best regards!
Yuchi Chen
 
Date: 2012-10-11 15:47
Subject: [Softwires] Call for presentation in IETF=20 85
Hi folks,
 
We will have two sessions in the c= oming IETF meeting
in Atlanta according to the preliminary = ;agenda:
1) Afternoon Session I on Tuesday (2h);=
2) Afternoon Session I on Wednesday (1.= 5h).
 
Please send your request to Suresh and&= nbsp;me in the following
format by Oct. 20 if you would lik= e to have a time slot:
 
(name, title, link to IETF datatracker, = ;minutes requested).
 
 
Thanks,
 
Yong & Suresh
 
 
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
------=_001_NextPart352865203531_=------ From mohamed.boucadair@orange.com Thu Oct 18 22:45:39 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 E4F3421F8594 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 22:45:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.134 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.134 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.114, 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 XUg3RFRGW2Pg for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 22:45:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias92.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38A0C21F8491 for ; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 22:45:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omfedm05.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.1]) by omfedm14.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 5789C22C53D; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:45:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from PUEXCH51.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.31]) by omfedm05.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 3D53635C045; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:45:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.8]) by PUEXCH51.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.31]) with mapi; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:45:37 +0200 From: To: "sarikaya@ieee.org" Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:45:35 +0200 Thread-Topic: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-04.txt Thread-Index: Ac2taGfm4TLDlrdER4SfhutcMda91QAU3QuA Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E6556BBC4@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> References: <20121018053517.4321.90951.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E64431C8E@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: fr-FR Content-Language: fr-FR X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: fr-FR Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2012.10.19.51220 Cc: "softwires@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-04.txt X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 05:45:40 -0000 Behcet, Please see inline. Cheers, Med=20 >-----Message d'origine----- >De : Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:sarikaya2012@gmail.com]=20 >Envoy=E9 : jeudi 18 octobre 2012 21:40 >=C0 : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN >Cc : softwires@ietf.org >Objet : Re: [Softwires] I-D Action:=20 >draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-04.txt > >Hi all, > > >On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:50 AM, =20 > wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> We submitted an updated version to resolve one open issue=20 >for the draft. The main changes are: >> >> * Remove a normative reference >> * Add a new section to describe how address translation is done. >> * Updated the examples to make use of the IPv6 address block=20 >defined in RFC6676. >> >> A detailed diff is available at:=20 >http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mul >ticast-04. >> >> As suggested by Stig, a message was sent to mboned ML=20 >(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mboned/current/msg01725.html). >> >> We believe this version solves the technical comments raised=20 >during WGLC and also against -03. >> >> There was a request from Behcet to add some normative=20 >references to the draft but this was not accepted (see the=20 >mailing list archives). >> > > >I don't remember what this refers to. Med: I'm referring to this http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires/c= urrent/msg04766.html when you asked " and I would like this be a normative reference. " > >But I do remember that this draft does not consider a very significant >case: IPv6 network may not be multicast enabled. Med: This draft assumes multicast capabilities are enabled in the network. = For the case you are referring to, you can use some existing tools (e.g., A= MT). > >If this issue is resolved (it could be resolved by accepting another >solution, because more than one solution may be accepted for a given >problem/charter item) then my issues with this draft will be resolved. Med: This point was discussed several times (e.g., http://www.ietf.org/mail= -archive/web/softwires/current/msg04767.html).=20 > >Regards, > >Behcet >= From sarikaya2012@gmail.com Fri Oct 19 08:23:59 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 A543121F845C for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 08:23:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.517 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.517 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.082, 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 VOpCgovffFpO for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 08:23:59 -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 13B6A21F8459 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 08:23:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ie0-f172.google.com with SMTP id 9so1002428iec.31 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 08:23:58 -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=oV94lubO6sPRKYxilV2m5h/QPvkvFreQ3s7A5Hso52U=; b=sEX6K2wA4xT9BNRKhvPJoBooxY9k7QzKaSCcjdqMPtH7OJPMRaBdOhSPgQrvD+GMQE 2u5W7baAUVq1OvNFNHyOX/RCre9DtEBCRLBz8H7M/AOYMvtw6or7z5xqtXBox5I14JEM fXmLfkcOR2O30X9gCuOfffKkHLaLZVnbwls1GaTOjjcGMucqV/sWTgit3E4+qqdKubqM aU14gLRPZdHrJDBYvxK3b67EEfNIcG5Gg1zQy+hYtsQV9Vt4JDWtHHrACZ0rSx79TI0r hgvPcdRMf0uTNB1bK87jD0kf9iJMsSeSdGhM4xJ0F7OZXnriKYLCuxMEVAmT4Ack3Sqx W22w== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.5.205 with SMTP id u13mr1743372igu.37.1350660238608; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 08:23:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.85.26 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 08:23:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E6556BBC4@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> References: <20121018053517.4321.90951.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E64431C8E@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E6556BBC4@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 10:23:58 -0500 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "softwires@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-04.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, 19 Oct 2012 15:23:59 -0000 Dear Med, Please do not take my comments personal. How many times I said this. Nothing personal, nothing against you or your coauthors, your drafts. Please kindly see inline. On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 12:45 AM, wrote: > Behcet, > > Please see inline. > > Cheers, > Med > >>-----Message d'origine----- >>De : Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:sarikaya2012@gmail.com] >>Envoy=E9 : jeudi 18 octobre 2012 21:40 >>=C0 : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN >>Cc : softwires@ietf.org >>Objet : Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: >>draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-04.txt >> >>Hi all, >> >> >>On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 12:50 AM, >> wrote: >>> Dear all, >>> >>> We submitted an updated version to resolve one open issue >>for the draft. The main changes are: >>> >>> * Remove a normative reference >>> * Add a new section to describe how address translation is done. >>> * Updated the examples to make use of the IPv6 address block >>defined in RFC6676. >>> >>> A detailed diff is available at: >>http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mul >>ticast-04. >>> >>> As suggested by Stig, a message was sent to mboned ML >>(http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mboned/current/msg01725.html). >>> >>> We believe this version solves the technical comments raised >>during WGLC and also against -03. >>> >>> There was a request from Behcet to add some normative >>references to the draft but this was not accepted (see the >>mailing list archives). >>> >> >> >>I don't remember what this refers to. > > Med: I'm referring to this http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires= /current/msg04766.html when you asked > > " > and I would like this be a normative reference. > " > Please see further below. > >> >>But I do remember that this draft does not consider a very significant >>case: IPv6 network may not be multicast enabled. > > Med: This draft assumes multicast capabilities are enabled in the network= . For the case you are referring to, you can use some existing tools (e.g.,= AMT). > Or RFC 6224. >> >>If this issue is resolved (it could be resolved by accepting another >>solution, because more than one solution may be accepted for a given >>problem/charter item) then my issues with this draft will be resolved. > > Med: This point was discussed several times (e.g., http://www.ietf.org/ma= il-archive/web/softwires/current/msg04767.html). > Med, this issue was discussed in the context of having a merged draft as I claimed that previous chair, Alain Durant requested it. Please, please pay attention to what I am saying now. As Softwire WG has already done in relation to 4rd, more than one drafts can be accepted corresponding to one charter item, I am kindly suggesting we do the same in DS-Lite multicast case as well. No problem with your draft but Softwire may progress another draft such as draft-sarikaya-softwire-dslitemulticast-01.txt. Please support this. Regards, Behcet From despres.remi@laposte.net Fri Oct 19 09:47:41 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 A2DDF21F873F for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:47:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.256 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.256 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.907, 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 GweXQ+wQeR1V for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:47:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp22.services.sfr.fr (smtp22.services.sfr.fr [93.17.128.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0017A21F8484 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:47:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from filter.sfr.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by msfrf2219.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 0DA467000064 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 18:47:40 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.0.21] (per92-10-88-166-221-144.fbx.proxad.net [88.166.221.144]) by msfrf2219.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id E2F2D7000046 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 18:47:39 +0200 (CEST) X-SFR-UUID: 20121019164739929.E2F2D7000046@msfrf2219.sfr.fr From: =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9mi_Despr=E9s?= Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 18:47:39 +0200 Message-Id: <7A7DBF48-5A83-453B-95E2-595EF95BFA16@laposte.net> To: Softwires WG Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [Softwires] MAP-E issues added in the issue tracker 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, 19 Oct 2012 16:47:41 -0000 Hello all, A few minutes ago, I added 6 items about MAP-E in the issue tracker. Not being able to continue active work in IETF, I did it with the hope = to contribute, with them, to the quality of the future standard, one for = which I have spent a lot of energy with passion.=20 How to deal with these issues is essentially in your hands. I may follow discussions, and possibly react to some of them, but can't = guarantee to answer direct questions. =20 Fortunately, there is enough high level competence in the WG to finish = the work.=20 Best regards, RD From sarikaya2012@gmail.com Fri Oct 19 09:58:17 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 5FABB21F873F for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:58:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.371 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.371 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.072, 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 dQtlU5ZDx-UT for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:58:17 -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 D655E21F870C for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:58:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ie0-f172.google.com with SMTP id 9so1171437iec.31 for ; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:58:16 -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=8JT346m7mQK9YfoQAV9Q097XGsjgPVqU5TXPyASSyXo=; b=ezv1CIe+gPOIAPlJJCF9Hz93Em34+QoF54xuo5dWecDKgCJprpTTzkBuhoFOUGemY6 bL1bO1j2us6qYgR1wS0aod+9Y88OmPm3vqMWS1ike+ZGD0HJCB3eJXrxyp2/JUi+Nt8E ePHFckvrkxxdfBRMJCYpuZMHsE9tdyDfhVqK8L4BC0jNOZLlZmdjU7paN3Y++xqo1VUA eWOg1PRXMlKrnQ1ZsD7YcC0yHrZ8pwCM3TsO/Np2KNEvkHCPpHEIUV0A0/5Ts5XPk9R7 BTf70P9E8ayo7d3Ocg7ZUdvBA5Owo0pfIQ2VWuNdETEo266diDMWyHu82Tiwoo2+GdrN BJew== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.5.205 with SMTP id u13mr2122539igu.37.1350665896300; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:58:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.85.26 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 09:58:16 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <7A7DBF48-5A83-453B-95E2-595EF95BFA16@laposte.net> References: <7A7DBF48-5A83-453B-95E2-595EF95BFA16@laposte.net> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:58:16 -0500 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: =?ISO-8859-1?B?UultaSBEZXNwculz?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Softwires WG Subject: Re: [Softwires] MAP-E issues added in the issue tracker 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, 19 Oct 2012 16:58:17 -0000 Thanks for doing this, Remi. My questions on MAP-E has not yet been answered. Should I also enter them into the issue tracker? Regards, Behcet On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 11:47 AM, R=E9mi Despr=E9s wrote: > Hello all, > > A few minutes ago, I added 6 items about MAP-E in the issue tracker. > > Not being able to continue active work in IETF, I did it with the hope to= contribute, with them, to the quality of the future standard, one for whic= h I have spent a lot of energy with passion. > > How to deal with these issues is essentially in your hands. > I may follow discussions, and possibly react to some of them, but can't g= uarantee to answer direct questions. > > Fortunately, there is enough high level competence in the WG to finish th= e work. > > Best regards, > RD > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires From despres.remi@laposte.net Mon Oct 22 00:14:08 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 A581A21F8419 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 00:14:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.241 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.241 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.892, 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 l39fbbofKMIH for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 00:14:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp22.services.sfr.fr (smtp22.services.sfr.fr [93.17.128.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01EB521F8470 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 00:14:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from filter.sfr.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by msfrf2218.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 5A6077000150; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 09:14:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.0.21] (per92-10-88-166-221-144.fbx.proxad.net [88.166.221.144]) by msfrf2218.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id EEBCF7000133; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 09:14:02 +0200 (CEST) X-SFR-UUID: 20121022071402977.EEBCF7000133@msfrf2218.sfr.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9mi_Despr=E9s?= In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 09:14:02 +0200 Message-Id: <8D945EC2-1F99-4AC6-82B6-B1AF81876892@laposte.net> References: <7A7DBF48-5A83-453B-95E2-595EF95BFA16@laposte.net> To: sarikaya@ieee.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Softwires WG Subject: Re: [Softwires] MAP-E issues added in the issue tracker 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, 22 Oct 2012 07:14:08 -0000 Le 2012-10-19 =E0 18:58, Behcet Sarikaya a =E9crit : > Thanks for doing this, Remi. My questions on MAP-E has not yet been > answered. Should I also enter them into the issue tracker? I suppose so, but this is more a question to the chairs. RD >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Behcet >=20 > On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 11:47 AM, R=E9mi Despr=E9s = wrote: >> Hello all, >>=20 >> A few minutes ago, I added 6 items about MAP-E in the issue tracker. >>=20 >> Not being able to continue active work in IETF, I did it with the = hope to contribute, with them, to the quality of the future standard, = one for which I have spent a lot of energy with passion. >>=20 >> How to deal with these issues is essentially in your hands. >> I may follow discussions, and possibly react to some of them, but = can't guarantee to answer direct questions. >>=20 >> Fortunately, there is enough high level competence in the WG to = finish the work. >>=20 >> Best regards, >> RD >> _______________________________________________ >> Softwires mailing list >> Softwires@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon Oct 22 01:01:39 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 4337321F8629; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 01:01:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.526 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.526 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.073, 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 Iv15kWmS3nTR; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 01:01:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B106C21F861B; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 01:01:38 -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: <20121022080138.4096.55165.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 01:01:38 -0700 Cc: softwires@ietf.org Subject: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-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: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 08:01:39 -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 : DHCPv6 Option for IPv4-Embedded Multicast and Unicast IP= v6 Prefixes Author(s) : Mohamed Boucadair Jacni Qin Tina Tsou Xiaohong Deng Filename : draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-03.txt Pages : 8 Date : 2012-10-22 Abstract: This document defines Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol version 6 (DHCPv6) Option for multicast transition solutions, aiming to convey the IPv6 prefixes to be used to build unicast and multicast IPv4- embedded IPv6 addresses. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-03 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-opt= ion-03 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From mohamed.boucadair@orange.com Mon Oct 22 01:11:00 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 91B7421F84E2 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 01:11:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.136 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.136 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.112, 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 2ux8J+qXlXhi for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 01:11:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias92.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9070C21F84CF for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 01:10:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.4]) by omfedm12.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id A050118C534 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:10:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from PUEXCH41.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.30]) by omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 8921F23804B for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:10:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.8]) by PUEXCH41.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.30]) with mapi; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:10:56 +0200 From: To: "softwires@ietf.org" Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:10:55 +0200 Thread-Topic: I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-03.txt Thread-Index: Ac2wK4I2ygKidOWgRViQogMYTQRNrwAAFGcQ Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E6556C0F5@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> References: <20121022080138.4096.55165.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20121022080138.4096.55165.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> 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 Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-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: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 08:11:00 -0000 Dear all, The main changes in this version are:=20 * The length of ASM_PREFIX64, SSM_PREFIX64 and U_PREFIX64 is now variable (= instead of 96 bits). * Update the fields description accordingly. A detailed diff is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-i= etf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-03 Cheers, Med >-----Message d'origine----- >De : i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org=20 >[mailto:i-d-announce-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de=20 >internet-drafts@ietf.org >Envoy=E9 : lundi 22 octobre 2012 10:02 >=C0 : i-d-announce@ietf.org >Cc : softwires@ietf.org >Objet : I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-03.txt > > >A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line=20 >Internet-Drafts directories. > This draft is a work item of the Softwires Working Group of the IETF. > > Title : DHCPv6 Option for IPv4-Embedded=20 >Multicast and Unicast IPv6 Prefixes > Author(s) : Mohamed Boucadair > Jacni Qin > Tina Tsou > Xiaohong Deng > Filename :=20 >draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-03.txt > Pages : 8 > Date : 2012-10-22 > >Abstract: > This document defines Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol version 6 > (DHCPv6) Option for multicast transition solutions, aiming to convey > the IPv6 prefixes to be used to build unicast and multicast IPv4- > embedded IPv6 addresses. > > >The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-multicast- >prefix-option > >There's also a htmlized version available at: >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix >-option-03 > >A diff from the previous version is available at: >http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-softwire-multicast- >prefix-option-03 > > >Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > >_______________________________________________ >I-D-Announce mailing list >I-D-Announce@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce >Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt >= From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon Oct 22 05:08:59 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 4066421F8B6D; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 05:08:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.531 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.531 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.068, 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 eggg65F7X+hC; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 05:08:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC84C21F8906; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 05:08:58 -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: <20121022120858.5929.4432.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 05:08:58 -0700 Cc: softwires@ietf.org Subject: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-4rd-04.txt X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:09:00 -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 : IPv4 Residual Deployment via IPv6 - a Stateless Solution= (4rd) Author(s) : Sheng Jiang Remi Despres Reinaldo Penno Yiu Lee Gang Chen Maoke Chen Filename : draft-ietf-softwire-4rd-04.txt Pages : 39 Date : 2012-10-22 Abstract: The 4rd automatic tunneling mechanism makes IPv4 Residual Deployment possible via IPv6 networks without maintaining for this per-customer states in 4rd-capable nodes (reverse of the IPv6 Rapid Deployment of 6rd). To cope with the IPv4 address shortage, customer sites can be assigned shared public IPv4 addresses with restricted port sets. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-4rd There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-4rd-04 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-softwire-4rd-04 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From internet-drafts@ietf.org Mon Oct 22 09:53:21 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 F18A521F8B03; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 09:53:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.536 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.536 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.063, 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 Bnj2Ti6gEFnI; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 09:53:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0147121F8A12; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 09:53:18 -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: <20121022165318.10346.88622.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 09:53:18 -0700 Cc: softwires@ietf.org Subject: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-deployment-00.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: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 16:53:21 -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 (MAP) - Deployment Considera= tions Author(s) : Qiong Sun Maoke Chen Gang Chen Chunfa Sun Tina Tsou Simon Perreault Filename : draft-ietf-softwire-map-deployment-00.txt Pages : 33 Date : 2012-07-01 Abstract: This document describes when and how an operator uses the technique of Mapping of Address and Port (MAP) for the IPv4 residual deployment in the IPv6-dominant domain. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map-deployment There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-deployment-00 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com Mon Oct 22 09:57:15 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 911C521F8A0F for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 09:57:13 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 D0qL17nBRN9M for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 09:57:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from imr4.ericy.com (imr4.ericy.com [198.24.6.9]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCE8811E80D1 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 09:57:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.178]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id q9MGxlZh025083; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:59:49 -0500 Received: from [142.133.112.74] (147.117.20.214) by smtps-am.internal.ericsson.com (147.117.20.178) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.279.1; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:57:02 -0400 Message-ID: <50857ADD.9090905@ericsson.com> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:57:01 -0400 From: Suresh Krishnan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120912 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "sarikaya@ieee.org" References: <7A7DBF48-5A83-453B-95E2-595EF95BFA16@laposte.net> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Softwires WG , Behcet Sarikaya Subject: Re: [Softwires] MAP-E issues added in the issue tracker 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, 22 Oct 2012 16:57:16 -0000 Hi Behcet, On 10/19/2012 12:58 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: > Thanks for doing this, Remi. My questions on MAP-E has not yet been > answered. Should I also enter them into the issue tracker? Yes please. You can create a new ticket in the tracker here: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/softwire/trac/newticket Thanks Suresh From sarikaya2012@gmail.com Mon Oct 22 12:42:10 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 3429821F8904 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:42:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.519 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.519 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.080, 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 N3gneyS3Jt7q for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:42:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ia0-f172.google.com (mail-ia0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9369221F88F3 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:42:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ia0-f172.google.com with SMTP id o25so2797760iad.31 for ; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:42:09 -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:content-type; bh=XOSTfUDBap0k8Td1qqXnPVHa/dbW3sfxe6mm46VqniA=; b=M4igtZkp2/jBx4MIuYbe3YibSbccd1p5MRDuzBxrvdYuRWoZCCK2q6L2MSq9oQUIAj 2c7GTfLWSKUoa6ZLps53rLWNq/McwHvS94Yng1efIdTpjZWydAJqKYEN7ZUvZlFRRsXM XFGs4a2D52B81DEv+YvUZDCamm71EP2elapLnRFv1vhBmnA5zppBy0OfaobW4hltd6rX +j38aTKSok2fFtJPG2qcffC8qyhdf8vNXpEc9HsP55NjSYWzUUPZ9ztThWj3lOfscVIy 1L5kpEnBp76MAQyAuX0lmiBBSj676GKPeQBrXbOG75OXPZtvWuKgr3qjSmZOvJvPhqG1 B8ng== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.208.101 with SMTP id md5mr17730476igc.37.1350934929031; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:42:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.85.26 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:42:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20121022193923.20923.17842.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20121022193923.20923.17842.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:42:08 -0500 Message-ID: From: Behcet Sarikaya To: Softwires-wg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [Softwires] New Version Notification for draft-sarikaya-softwire-4rdmulticast-04.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: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:42:10 -0000 Hi all, I submitted a revised version of 4rd multicast draft. Chairs: please reserve a slot in IETF 85 session. Regards, Behcet A new version of I-D, draft-sarikaya-softwire-4rdmulticast-04.txt has been successfully submitted by Behcet Sarikaya and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-sarikaya-softwire-4rdmulticast Revision: 04 Title: Multicast Support for 4rd Creation date: 2012-10-22 WG ID: Individual Submission Number of pages: 17 URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-sarikaya-softwire-4rdmulticast-04.txt Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sarikaya-softwire-4rdmulticast Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarikaya-softwire-4rdmulticast-04 Diff: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-sarikaya-softwire-4rdmulticast-04 Abstract: This memo specifies 4rd technology's multicast component so that IPv4 hosts can receive multicast data from IPv4 servers over an IPv6 network. In 4rd encapsulation solution for encapsulation variant of Mapping of Address and Port (MAP), MAP-E, IGMP Proxy at the 4rd Customer Edge router uses IPv4-in-IPv6 tunnel established by MAP-E to exchange IGMP messages to establish multicast state at MAP Border Relay so that MAP Border Relay can tunnel IPv4 multicast data to IPv4 hosts connected to MAP Customer Edge device. In 4rd Translation Multicast solution for 4rd and translation variant of MAP, MAP-T, IGMP messages are translated into MLD messages at the CE router which is IGMP/MLD Proxy and sent to the network in IPv6. 4rd Border Relay does the reverse translation and joins IPv4 multicast group for 4rd hosts. Border Relay as multicast router receives IPv4 multicast data and translates the packet into IPv6 multicast data and sends downstream on the multicast tree. Member CEs receive multicast data, translate it back to IPv4 and transmit to the hosts. The IETF Secretariat