From suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com Wed May 1 21:19:12 2013 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 914E021F99F8 for ; Wed, 1 May 2013 21:19:11 -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=[AWL=-0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g+G2aQ6BNR6f for ; Wed, 1 May 2013 21:19:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usevmg21.ericsson.net (usevmg21.ericsson.net [198.24.6.65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A2F421F867B for ; Wed, 1 May 2013 21:18:57 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c6180641-b7faf6d00000096b-14-5181e930cfd5 Received: from EUSAAHC005.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.87]) by usevmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 2B.64.02411.039E1815; Thu, 2 May 2013 06:18:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EUSAAMB107.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.124]) by EUSAAHC005.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.87]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Thu, 2 May 2013 00:18:56 -0400 From: Suresh Krishnan To: "softwires@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Editors for the unified CPE document Thread-Index: Ac5GocWhDfXE9wmmSeWK9i3pRLmXog== Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 04:18:55 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.134] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E87B771635882B4BA20096B589152EF6213BA1eusaamb107ericsso_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrPLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPuK7hy8ZAg223mS1+bEm26F76n8Xi 8LKtTBarP2xicWDxmPJ7I6vHkiU/mTyOf37L7LHug3kASxSXTUpqTmZZapG+XQJXxs1NZ9gK nolX/LlV28D4VqSLkZNDQsBE4sz/uUwQtpjEhXvr2boYuTiEBI4ySsx4+owZwlnGKHHk+UU2 kCo2oI4NOz+DdYgI6Er8frIWrIhZYBWjxJPzd8ESwkCJ5a3bgWwOoCIjidXnBCDq9SQ6p99l BLFZBFQk3i5oZwaxeQW8Ja6+uccOYjMCXfH91BqwMcwC4hK3nsyHuk5AYsme88wQtqjEy8f/ WCFsZYklT/azQNTnS+w5fowFYqagxMmZT1gmMArPQjJqFpKyWUjKIOI6Egt2f2KDsLUlli18 zQxjnznwmAlZfAEj+ypGjtLi1LLcdCPDTYzASDomwea4g3HBJ8tDjNIcLErivIlcjYFCAumJ JanZqakFqUXxRaU5qcWHGJk4OKUaGK242F5P3J7F+sbNIP/RdVvJB7LfGtZEsCs/VxUIYK6e 0LHs/IQXR/e1H+766huafe7ays6FWYKH7DnfMjd6PAx1is0o86jaM6s39+myO5a8/3R0YiL9 Z3X9UmaZdmARu92n3g0Lzv1ReGYX7WLw9ZDP4RPqCTtdWVJq2nk4JU2/nDPewPz7nxJLcUai oRZzUXEiAJH4ufFyAgAA Cc: "Yong Cui \(cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn\)" Subject: [Softwires] Editors for the unified CPE document 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, 02 May 2013 04:19:12 -0000 --_000_E87B771635882B4BA20096B589152EF6213BA1eusaamb107ericsso_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, Thanks to everyone who volunteered to edit this document. We have chosen= Simon Perreault and Senthil Sivakumar to be the editors of this document g= oing forward. We would like to thank Med and Ian for putting the initial d= ocument together and getting several of the contentious issues resolved. We= have requested them to stay on as co-authors. Regards Suresh & Yong --_000_E87B771635882B4BA20096B589152EF6213BA1eusaamb107ericsso_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi all,

   Thanks to everyone who volunteered to e= dit this document. We have chosen Simon Perreault and Senthil Sivakumar to = be the editors of this document going forward.  We would like to thank= Med and Ian for putting the initial document together and getting several of the contentious issues resolved. We have requested = them to stay on as co-authors.

 

Regards

Suresh & Yong

--_000_E87B771635882B4BA20096B589152EF6213BA1eusaamb107ericsso_-- From ian.farrer@telekom.de Thu May 2 01:35:52 2013 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 9F50821F8E5F for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 01:35:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.496 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.496 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AtJwP5vu5nGx for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 01:35:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tcmail23.telekom.de (tcmail23.telekom.de [80.149.113.243]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD12C21F85EE for ; Thu, 2 May 2013 01:35:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from he111628.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.20]) by tcmail21.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 02 May 2013 10:35:45 +0200 Received: from HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM ([10.134.93.12]) by HE111628.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Thu, 2 May 2013 10:35:44 +0200 From: To: , Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 10:35:46 +0200 Thread-Topic: [Softwires] Provisioning Format for CPE BR/lwAFTR Address Thread-Index: Ac5HEAiz63TKWZHcSoGe7HFj2XcpTQ== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.2.130206 acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="euc-kr" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: softwires@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Softwires] Provisioning Format for CPE BR/lwAFTR Address 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, 02 May 2013 08:35:52 -0000 SGkgUmFqaXYsDQoNClBsZWFzZSBzZWUgaW5saW5lLg0KDQpDaGVlcnMsDQpJYW4NCg0KDQoNCk9u IDI2LzA0LzIwMTMgMTg6MTMsICJSYWppdiBBc2F0aSAocmFqaXZhKSIgPHJhaml2YUBjaXNjby5j b20+IHdyb3RlOg0KDQo+SGkgSWFuLA0KPg0KPlBsZWFzZSBzZWUgaW5saW5lLA0KPg0KPj4gW2lh bl0gSSdtIGFsc28gbm90IHN1cmUgYWJvdXQgdGhlIG5lZWQgZm9yIHRoaXMgKEkgY2VydGFpbmx5 IGRvbid0IHBsYW4NCj4+dG8NCj4+IHVzZSBpdCksIGJ1dCBpdCdzIGJlZW4gcmFpc2VkLiBEbyBh bnkgb3RoZXIgb3BlcmF0b3JzIHNlZSBhIG5lZWQgZm9yDQo+PnRoaXMNCj4+IGluIHRoZWlyIGFy Y2hpdGVjdHVyZT8NCj4NCj5UaGFua3MgZm9yIHBvc2luZyB0aGlzIFEgdG8gdGhlIG90aGVyIG9w ZXJhdG9ycyAoYW5kIHNoYXJpbmcgeW91ciB2aWV3KS4NCg0KW2lhbl0gSXQgd291bGQgYmUgZ3Jl YXQgaWYgc29tZSBvdGhlciBvcGVyYXRvcnMgd291bGQgc2hhcmUhDQoNCj4NCj4NCj4NCj4+IFtp YW5dIE1BUC1FICYgbHc0bzYgYm90aCBuZWVkIGEgLzEyOCBmb3IgdGhlIGNvbmNlbnRyYXRvciAo d2hldGhlciB0aGlzDQo+PmlzDQo+PiBzdXBwbGllZCBhcyBhIHByZWZpeCBvciBhbiBGUUROKSBh bmQgd2lsbCBub3Qgd29yayB3aXRob3V0IHRoaXMuIE1BUC1UDQo+PmNhbg0KPj4gbm90IGhhdmUg YSAvMTI4IHByZWZpeCBmb3IgdGhlIERNUiAoLzk2IGlzIHRoZSBsb25nZXN0KS4gTUFQLUUgJiBs dzRvNg0KPj4gd291bGRuJ3Qgd29yayBpZiB0aGV5IHdlcmUgcHJvdmlzaW9uZWQgd2l0aCBhIE1B UC1UIERNUiBjb21wYXRpYmxlDQo+PnByZWZpeC4NCj4+IE1BUC1UIHdvdWxkbid0IHdvcmsgaWYg aXQgd2FzIHByb3Zpc2lvbmVkIHdpdGggYSBNQVAtRSAvIGx3NG82IERNUg0KPj4gY29tcGF0aWJs ZSBwcmVmaXguIEl0IG1ha2VzIHNlbnNlIHRvIGhhdmUgYSBzaW5nbGUgb3B0aW9uL3N1Yi1vcHRp b24gZm9yDQo+PiBwcm92aXNpb25pbmcgTUFQLUUgYW5kIGx3NG82IEJScyBhbmQgdXNlIGEgc2Vw YXJhdGUgb3B0aW9uL3N1Yi1vcHRpb24NCj4+Zm9yDQo+PiBNQVAtVC4NCj4NCj5JZiB0aGUgc2Ft ZSBvcHRpb24gcHJvdmlkZXMgcHJlZml4LWxlbmd0aCBhbmQgcHJlZml4LCB0aGVuIE1BUC1FLCAt VCBhbmQNCj5sdzRvNiBjYW4gbGV2ZXJhZ2UgaXQgYWNjb3JkaW5nbHkuIFRoaXMgaXMgaG93IE1B UC1ESENQIGFscmVhZHkgZG9lcyBpdA0KPihmb3IgTUFQIG1vZGVzKSBhbmQgY291bGQgYmUgZXhw bG9pdGVkIHRvIGluY2x1ZGUgbHc0bzYuDQo+DQo+VGhpcyBraW5kYSBhcHByb2FjaCBpcyB3aWRl bHkgdXNlZCBpbiBvdGhlciBwcm90b2NvbHM6DQo+DQo+SVB2NiBSQSBQSU8gLSBodHRwOi8vdG9v bHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9yZmM0ODYxI3NlY3Rpb24tNC42LjINCj5NUExTIE9BTSAtIGh0dHA6 Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9odG1sL3JmYzQzNzkjc2VjdGlvbi0zLjIuMg0KDQpbaWFuXSBDZXJ0 YWlubHkgaXQgd29ya3MuIE15IHByb2JsZW0gaGVyZSBpcyBob3cgd2UgY2FuIGFsaWduIGFsbCBv ZiB0aGUNCmRpZmZlcmVudCBzb2Z0d2lyZSBhcHByb2FjaGVzIHdpdGggdGhlIFVuaWZpZWQgQ1BF IG1vZGVsIG9mIHVzaW5nIHRoZQ0KcHJlc2VuY2Ugb3IgYWJzZW5jZSBvZiB0aGUgb3B0aW9ucyB0 byBkZWZpbmUgd2hpY2ggc3cgbW9kZSB0byBjb25maWd1cmU/DQpNQVAgKEUmVCkgdXNlIHRoZSBE TVIgKyBhbiA4IGJpdCBmbGFncyBmaWVsZC4gQSBzaW5nbGUgRE1SIHN1Yi1vcHRpb24sDQp3aXRo IHRoZSBmbGFnIHRlbGxpbmcgdGhlIENQRSBob3cgdG8gaW50ZXJwcmV0IGl0Lg0KDQpXaGF0IHdv dWxkIGJlIG1vcmUgaW4gbGluZSB3aXRoIHRoZSB1bmlmaWVkIENQRSBtb2RlbCAoYW5kIGluIGxp bmUgd2l0aA0Kd2hhdCdzIGluIA0KaHR0cDovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL2h0bWwvZHJhZnQtaWV0 Zi1kaGMtb3B0aW9uLWd1aWRlbGluZXMtMTEjc2VjdGlvbi01LjIpDQogd291bGQgYmUgdG8gYnJl YWsgb3V0IHRoZSBNQVAtVCBETVIgYW5kIHRoZSBNQVAtRS9sdzRvNiBETVIgaW50bw0KZGlmZmVy ZW50IHN1Yi1vcHRpb25zIGFuZCB1c2UgdGhlaXIgcHJlc2VuY2Ugb3IgYWJzZW5jZSB0byB0ZWxs IHRoZSBDUEUNCndoaWNoIHNvZnR3aXJlIG1vZGUgdXNlLCByYXRoZXIgdGhhbiB0aGUgY3VycmVu dCBmbGFncyBmaWVsZCB0aGF0IG9ubHkgaGFzDQphIHNpbmdsZSBvcHRpb24uDQoNCkkgZG9uoa90 IHJlYWxseSBsaWtlIHRoaXMgbWl4ZWQgYXBwcm9hY2ggb2YgJ29wdGlvbiBwcmVzZW5jZScgZm9y IHNvbWUNCnNvZnR3aXJlIG1vZGVzIGFuZCBmbGFncyBmb3Igb3RoZXJzLiBJIHJlYWxseSB0aGlu ayB0aGF0IHdlIG5lZWQgdG8gYWxpZ24NCm9uIGEgc2luZ2xlIGFwcHJvYWNoIGhlcmUgKHRoZSBv bmUgaW4gdGhlIFVuaWZpZWQgQ1BFIGRyYWZ0KS4NCg0KPg0KPg0KPkNoZWVycywNCj5SYWppdg0K Pg0KPg0KPi0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0tDQo+RnJvbTogSWFuIEZhcnJlciA8aWFu LmZhcnJlckB0ZWxla29tLmRlPg0KPkRhdGU6IEZyaWRheSwgQXByaWwgMjYsIDIwMTMgMTE6NTIg QU0NCj5UbzogUmFqaXYgQXNhdGkgPHJhaml2YUBjaXNjby5jb20+LCBPbGUgVHJvYW4gPG90cm9h bkBlbXBsb3llZXMub3JnPg0KPkNjOiBTb2Z0d2lyZXMtd2cgbGlzdCA8c29mdHdpcmVzQGlldGYu b3JnPg0KPlN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBbU29mdHdpcmVzXSBQcm92aXNpb25pbmcgRm9ybWF0IGZvciBD UEUgQlIvbHdBRlRSIEFkZHJlc3MNCj4NCj4+SGkgUmFqaXYsDQo+Pg0KPj5UaGFua3MgZm9yIHlv dXIgcmVzcG9uc2UuIENvbW1lbnRzIGluIGxpbmUuDQo+Pg0KPj5DaGVlcnMsDQo+Pklhbg0KPj4N Cj4+DQo+Pg0KPj5PbiAyNi8wNC8yMDEzIDE3OjEyLCAiUmFqaXYgQXNhdGkgKHJhaml2YSkiIDxy YWppdmFAY2lzY28uY29tPiB3cm90ZToNCj4+DQo+Pj4NCj4+PkkgcmVhbGx5IGRvbid0IHNlZSB0 aGUgbmVlZCBmb3IgaGF2aW5nIHRvIHNwZWNpZnkgbW9yZSB0aGFuIG9uZSBCUg0KPj4+cHJlZml4 ZXMgKG9mIHdoYXRldmVyIGxlbmd0aCkgaW5zaWRlIGEgc2luZ2xlIE1BUCBkb21haW4uIExldCBh bG9uZSBGUURODQo+Pj5vciBsaXN0IG9mIElQIGFkZHJlc3Nlcy4NCj4+Pg0KPj4+VGhlIHJlYXNv biBpcyB0aGF0IGhhdmluZyBtdWx0aXBsZSBCUiBwcmVmaXhlcyBpbiB0aGUgc2FtZSBkb21haW4g d291bGQNCj4+PmF0DQo+Pj5iZXN0IGFsbG93IHRoZSB1cHN0cmVhbSB0cmFmZmljIHRvIGdvIHRv IGRpZmZlcmVudCBCUi4gQnV0IGl0IHdvdWxkDQo+Pj5ub3RoaW5nIHRvIGRpZmZlcmVudGlhdGUg dGhlIGRvd25zdHJlYW0gdHJhZmZpYywgYXMgaXQgY2FuIGNvbWUgZnJvbSBhbnkNCj4+PkJSLiBT bywgbG9hZC1zcGxpdHRpbmcgd291bGQgYmUgdmVyeSBwb29yIGFuZCB5aWVsZCBubyBiZW5lZml0 LiBBcyBmYXINCj4+PmFzDQo+Pj5hdmFpbGFiaWxpdHkgaXMgY29uY2VybmVkLCB0aGVuIGFueSBj YXN0aW5nIGlzIGFscmVhZHkgZ29vZCBlbm91Z2guDQo+Pj4NCj4+PkFmdGVyIGFsbCwgbW9zdCA2 cmQgZGVwbG95bWVudHMgc3RpY2sgd2l0aCBhIHNpbmdsZSBCUiBwcmVmaXguDQo+Pg0KPj5baWFu XSBJJ20gYWxzbyBub3Qgc3VyZSBhYm91dCB0aGUgbmVlZCBmb3IgdGhpcyAoSSBjZXJ0YWlubHkg ZG9uJ3QgcGxhbg0KPj50bw0KPj51c2UgaXQpLCBidXQgaXQncyBiZWVuIHJhaXNlZC4gRG8gYW55 IG90aGVyIG9wZXJhdG9ycyBzZWUgYSBuZWVkIGZvciB0aGlzDQo+PmluIHRoZWlyIGFyY2hpdGVj dHVyZT8NCj4+DQo+Pj4NCj4+Pg0KPj4+TGFzdGx5LCBpdCB3b3VsZCBiZSBhIHNldmVyZSBtaXN0 YWtlIG9mIG91cnMgdG8gbGltaXQgdGhlIEJSIHRvIGEgcHJlZml4DQo+Pj5vZiAvMTI4IGxlbmd0 aC4gQXMgZmV3IG90aGVyIG9wZXJhdG9ycyAoZS5nLiBSZWxpYW5jZSkgaGF2ZSBhbHJlYWR5DQo+ Pj5ub3RlZA0KPj4+dGhlaXIgdXNlIG9mIE1BUC1ULCBpdCB3b3VsZCBiZSBwcnVkZW50IGZvciB0 aGUgc2FtZSBwcm92aXNpb25pbmcgb3B0aW9uDQo+Pj50byB3b3JrIHdpdGggaXQuIFRoYW5rZnVs bHksIHRoaXMgaXMgY29ycmVjdGx5IHNwZWNpZmllZCBpbiB0aGUgbWFwLWRoY3ANCj4+PmRyYWZ0 Lg0KPj4NCj4+W2lhbl0gTUFQLUUgJiBsdzRvNiBib3RoIG5lZWQgYSAvMTI4IGZvciB0aGUgY29u Y2VudHJhdG9yICh3aGV0aGVyIHRoaXMNCj4+aXMNCj4+c3VwcGxpZWQgYXMgYSBwcmVmaXggb3Ig YW4gRlFETikgYW5kIHdpbGwgbm90IHdvcmsgd2l0aG91dCB0aGlzLiBNQVAtVA0KPj5jYW4NCj4+ bm90IGhhdmUgYSAvMTI4IHByZWZpeCBmb3IgdGhlIERNUiAoLzk2IGlzIHRoZSBsb25nZXN0KS4g TUFQLUUgJiBsdzRvNg0KPj53b3VsZG4ndCB3b3JrIGlmIHRoZXkgd2VyZSBwcm92aXNpb25lZCB3 aXRoIGEgTUFQLVQgRE1SIGNvbXBhdGlibGUNCj4+cHJlZml4Lg0KPj5NQVAtVCB3b3VsZG4ndCB3 b3JrIGlmIGl0IHdhcyBwcm92aXNpb25lZCB3aXRoIGEgTUFQLUUgLyBsdzRvNiBETVINCj4+Y29t cGF0aWJsZSBwcmVmaXguIEl0IG1ha2VzIHNlbnNlIHRvIGhhdmUgYSBzaW5nbGUgb3B0aW9uL3N1 Yi1vcHRpb24gZm9yDQo+PnByb3Zpc2lvbmluZyBNQVAtRSBhbmQgbHc0bzYgQlJzIGFuZCB1c2Ug YSBzZXBhcmF0ZSBvcHRpb24vc3ViLW9wdGlvbiBmb3INCj4+TUFQLVQuDQo+PiANCj4+DQo+Pg0K Pj4+DQo+Pj5DaGVlcnMsDQo+Pj5SYWppdg0KPj4+DQo+Pj4NCj4+Pi0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVz c2FnZS0tLS0tDQo+Pj5Gcm9tOiBPbGUgVHJvYW4gPG90cm9hbkBlbXBsb3llZXMub3JnPg0KPj4+ RGF0ZTogRnJpZGF5LCBBcHJpbCAyNiwgMjAxMyA0OjM5IEFNDQo+Pj5UbzogSWFuIEZhcnJlciA8 aWFuLmZhcnJlckB0ZWxla29tLmRlPg0KPj4+Q2M6IFNvZnR3aXJlcy13ZyBsaXN0IDxzb2Z0d2ly ZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmc+DQo+Pj5TdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogW1NvZnR3aXJlc10gUHJvdmlzaW9uaW5nIEZv cm1hdCBmb3IgQ1BFIEJSL2x3QUZUUiBBZGRyZXNzDQo+Pj4NCj4+Pj5JYW4sDQo+Pj4+DQo+Pj4+ PiBTb3JyeSB0byBkaWcgdGhpcyBvbmUgdXAgYWdhaW4sIGJ1dCBhbHRob3VnaCB0aGVyZSBoYXMg YmVlbiBhIGZhaXINCj4+Pj4+Yml0DQo+Pj4+Pm9mIGRpc2N1c3Npb24gYXJvdW5kIHRoZSB0b3Bp YywgSSBkb24ndCB0aGluayB0aGF0IHdlIGhhdmUgc28gZmFyDQo+Pj4+PnJlYWNoZWQgYW4gYWdy ZWVtZW50IG9uIGhvdyB0byBwcm92aXNpb24gc3cgQ1BFcyB3aXRoIHRoZSBhZGRyZXNzIG9mDQo+ Pj4+PnRoZQ0KPj4+Pj5jb25jZW50cmF0b3IgZm9yIE1BUC1FIGFuZCBsdzRvNi4gV2UgbmVlZCB0 byBnZXQgYSBmaW5hbCBhbnN3ZXIgb24NCj4+Pj4+dGhpcw0KPj4+Pj5hcyB0aGVyZSdzIGEgZmV3 IGRyYWZ0cyAoc29mdHdpcmUtdW5pZmllZC1jcGUsIHNvZnR3aXJlLW1hcC1kaGNwLA0KPj4+Pj5z b2Z0d2lyZS1sdzRvdmVyNikgdGhhdCBhcmUgcmVseWluZyBvbiBpdC4NCj4+Pj4+IA0KPj4+Pj4g VG8gdHJ5IGFuZCBzdW1tYXJpc2Ugd2hhdCdzIGFscmVhZHkgb3V0IHRoZXJlOg0KPj4+Pj4gVGhl IFVuaWZpZWQgQ1BFICYgbHc0bzYgZHJhZnRzIHByb3Bvc2UgdGhlIHVzZSBvZiBESENQdjYgT3B0 aW9uIDY0DQo+Pj4+Pih0aGUNCj4+Pj4+RFMtTGl0ZSBBRlRSIEZRRE4gb3B0aW9uKQ0KPj4+Pj4g TWFwLWRoY3AgZGVzY3JpYmVzIHRoZSB1c2Ugb2YgdGhlIGRlZmF1bHQgbWFwcGluZyBydWxlIChE TVIpIHRvDQo+Pj4+PnByb3ZpZGUNCj4+Pj4+dGhlIC8xMjggb2YgdGhlIEJSDQo+Pj4+PiANCj4+ Pj4+IEkgdGhpbmsgdGhhdCBpdCdzIHJlYXNvbmFibGUgdG8gc2F5IHRoYXQgYm90aCB3b3JrIKGp IEkuZS4gVGhleQ0KPj4+Pj5jb250YWluDQo+Pj4+PmVub3VnaCBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiB0byBwcm92 aXNpb24gdGhlIGNsaWVudCB3aXRoIHRoZSAvMTI4IG9mIHRoZQ0KPj4+Pj5jb25jZW50cmF0b3Ig c28gdGhhdCBpdCBjYW4gc2VuZCB0cmFmZmljLg0KPj4+Pj4gDQo+Pj4+PiBIZXJlIGFyZSB0aGUg YXJndW1lbnRzIGZvci9hZ2FpbnN0IGVhY2ggdGhhdCBJJ3ZlIHNlZW4uIEkndmUgdHJpZWQgdG8N Cj4+Pj4+bGlzdCBhbGwgdGhlIG9uZXMgdGhhdCBJJ3ZlIHNlZW4sIHNvIGlmIEkndmUgbWlzc2Vk IGFueSwgdGhlbiBwbGVhc2UNCj4+Pj4+YWRkDQo+Pj4+PnRoZW06DQo+Pj4+PiANCj4+Pj4+IERI Q1B2NiBPcHRpb24gNjQNCj4+Pj4+IFByb3MNCj4+Pj4+IEZRRE4gbWVhbnMgdGhhdCBETlMgcm91 bmQtcm9iaW4gbG9hZCBiYWxhbmNpbmcgY291bGQgYmUgdXNlZA0KPj4+Pg0KPj4+PlJGQzYzMzQg c3BlY2lmaWVzIHRoYXQgb25seSB0aGUgZmlyc3QgQUFBQSBzaG91bGQgYmUgdXNlZC4NCj4+Pj4N Cj4+Pj4+IFJldXNlIG9mIGFuIGV4aXN0aW5nIG9wdGlvbg0KPj4+Pj4gDQo+Pj4+PiBDb25zDQo+ Pj4+PiBDYW4gbm90IGJlIGV4dGVuZGVkIHdpdGggYWRkaXRpb25hbCBzdWItb3B0aW9ucw0KPj4+ Pg0KPj4+PnRoZSBDRSBuZWVkcyB0byBkZWFsIHdpdGggRE5TIFRUTCBhbmQgdGhlIGFkZGVkIGNv bXBsZXhpdHkgb2YgaGF2aW5nDQo+Pj4+dGhlDQo+Pj4+cmVzdWx0aW5nICJsaWZldGltZSIgb2Yg dGhlDQo+Pj4+ZGVmYXVsdCByb3V0ZXIgYmUgZGlmZmVyZW50IHRoYW4gdGhlIGxpZmV0aW1lIG9m IHRoZSBhZGRyZXNzL21lY2hhbmlzbS4NCj4+Pj4NCj4+Pj5vbmx5IG9uZSBCUiBjYW4gYmUgY29u ZmlndXJlZA0KPj4+Pg0KPj4+Pj4gbWFwLWRoY3AgRE1SDQo+Pj4+PiBQcm9zDQo+Pj4+PiBPcHRp b24gaGFzIGFuICdlbmNhcHN1bGF0ZWQgb3B0aW9ucycgZmllbGQsIHNvIGNvdWxkIGJlIGV4dGVu ZGVkIHdpdGgNCj4+Pj4+YWRkaXRpb25hbCBmdW5jdGlvbmFsaXR5IChhbHRob3VnaCBubyBhZGRp dGlvbmFsIGZ1bmN0aW9uYWxpdHkgaGFzDQo+Pj4+PmN1cnJlbnRseSBiZWVuIHByb3Bvc2VkIGF0 IHRoaXMgc3RhZ2UpDQo+Pj4+PiANCj4+Pj4+IENvbnMNCj4+Pj4+IE9ubHkgb25lIERNUiAvMTI4 IGNhbiBiZSBwcm92aXNpb25lZCB0byBhIGNsaWVudCwgc28gcm91bmQgcm9iaW4gbG9hZA0KPj4+ Pj5iYWxhbmNpbmcgY2FuJ3QgYmUgdXNlZA0KPj4+Pg0KPj4+PnlvdSBjYW4gdXNlIGFueWNhc3Qu DQo+Pj4+DQo+Pj4+PiBNYXkgY29uZmxpY3Qgd2l0aCB0aGUgTUFQLVQgKDwvMTI4IHByZWZpeCkg RE1SIKGpIENvdWxkIGJlIGNvbnNpZGVyZWQNCj4+Pj4+dG8NCj4+Pj4+YmUgb3V0IG9mIHNjb3Bl IGZvciB0aGlzIGRpc2N1c3Npb24sIGJ1dCBpZiB3ZSBhcmUgZm9sbG93aW5nIHRoZQ0KPj4+Pj5t ZWNoYW5pc21zIGRlc2NyaWJlZCBpbiBVbmlmaWVkIENQRSBzbyB0aGF0IGEgQ1BFIGNhbiB3b3Jr IG91dCB3aGljaA0KPj4+Pj5TVw0KPj4+Pj5tb2RlIHRvIGNvbmZpZ3VyZSwgdGhlbiBhIGRlZGlj YXRlZCBNQVAtVCBzdWItb3B0aW9uIChub3Qgc2hhcmVkIGJ5DQo+Pj4+PmFueQ0KPj4+Pj5vdGhl ciBtb2RlKSBpcyBuZWVkZWQuIFRoaXMgaXMgcmVsYXRlZCB0byBjb252ZXJzYXRpb25zIHRoYXQg SSd2ZSBoYWQNCj4+Pj4+YXJvdW5kIGV4dGVuZGluZyB0aGUgVW5pZmllZCBDUEUgbW9kZWwgZm9y IG90aGVyIHNvZnR3aXJlIGFwcHJvYWNoZXMuDQo+Pj4+PiANCj4+Pj4+IE15IHZpZXc6IElmIHRo ZXJlIGlzIGFkZGl0aW9uYWwgZnVuY3Rpb25hbGl0eSByZXF1aXJlZCBpbiB0aGlzDQo+Pj4+Pm9w dGlvbiwNCj4+Pj4+b3ZlciBhbiBhYm92ZSB0aGUgcHJvdmlzaW9uaW5nIG9mIGEgLzEyOCBwcmVm aXggZm9yIHRoZSBjb25jZW50cmF0b3IsDQo+Pj4+PnRoZW4gdGhlIE1BUCBETVIgKGxpbWl0ZWQg dG8gTUFQLUUpIGlzIHRoZSBjbGVhciBjaG9pY2UuIEhvd2V2ZXIsIGlmDQo+Pj4+Pm5vDQo+Pj4+ PnN1Y2ggZnVuY3Rpb25hbGl0eSBpcyBuZWVkZWQsIHRoZW4gd2Ugc2hvdWxkIHJlLXVzZSBPcHRp b24gNjQuDQo+Pj4+DQo+Pj4+ZG9lcyBhbnlvbmUga25vdyB3aHkgYSBGUUROICh3aXRoIHJlc3Ry aWN0aW9ucykgd2FzIGNob3NlbiBmb3IgRFMtbGl0ZT8NCj4+Pj4NCj4+Pj5jb25zaWRlcmF0aW9u czoNCj4+Pj4gLSBNQVA6IHNob3VsZCBCUiBiZSBpbnNpZGUgb3Igb3V0c2lkZSBvZiB0aGUgZG9t YWluLiBpZiBpbnNpZGUgdXNlIGFuDQo+Pj4+SVB2NCBhZGRyZXNzLCBpZiBvdXRzaWRlIHVzZSBh biBJUHY2IGFkZHJlc3MuDQo+Pj4+ICAgKEkgYmVsaWV2ZSB3ZSBoYXZlIGFncmVlZCBvbiBvdXRz aWRlLCBhbmQgZm9yIExXNDYgaXQgbXVzdCBhbHdheXMgYmUNCj4+Pj5vdXRzaWRlKS4NCj4+Pj4g LSBzaG91bGQgdGhlIENFIGhhdmUgbXVsdGlwbGUgQlJzPyBhbmQgaWYgc28sIHdoYXQgc2hvdWxk IGl0IGRvDQo+Pj4+YmV0d2Vlbg0KPj4+PnRoZW0/IGxvYWQtYmFsYW5jZT8NCj4+Pj4gICB0aGUg Y2hvaWNlIGluIDZyZCB3YXMgdG8gYWxsb3cgZm9yIG11bHRpcGxlIEJScywgYnV0IG5vdCBzcGVj aWZ5IGhvdw0KPj4+Pm11bHRpcGxlIEJScyBjb3VsZCBiZSB1c2VkDQo+Pj4+DQo+Pj4+bXkgcHJl ZmVyZW5jZSBpcyBmb3IgYSBzaW1wbGUgbGlzdCBvZiBJUHY2IEJSIGFkZHJlc3Nlcy4gaS5lLiBu b25lIG9mDQo+Pj4+dGhlDQo+Pj4+dHdvIGFib3ZlIG9wdGlvbnMuDQo+Pj4+DQo+Pj4+Y2hlZXJz LA0KPj4+Pk9sZQ0KPj4+Pl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fDQo+Pj4+U29mdHdpcmVzIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KPj4+PlNvZnR3aXJlc0BpZXRmLm9y Zw0KPj4+Pmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vc29mdHdpcmVzDQo+ Pj4NCj4+DQo+DQoNCg== From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu May 2 07:59:03 2013 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 6ED3721F8B8F; Thu, 2 May 2013 07:59:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.574 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.026, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id axIhQF0z+dRw; Thu, 2 May 2013 07:59:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09C6D21F8A11; Thu, 2 May 2013 07:59:03 -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: 4.44.p4 Message-ID: <20130502145902.19518.65470.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 02 May 2013 07:59:02 -0700 Cc: softwires@ietf.org Subject: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-08.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, 02 May 2013 14:59:03 -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-4over6-08.txt Pages : 13 Date : 2013-05-02 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. This mechanism features the allocation of full IPv4 address over IPv6 network, and has been used in production for high-end IPv4 users, IPv6 transition of ICPs, etc. 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-4over6-08 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-08 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From ian.farrer@telekom.de Fri May 3 09:25:22 2013 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 F3B0421F9660 for ; Fri, 3 May 2013 09:25:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.873 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.873 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.377, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MbpwEYCs9EGq for ; Fri, 3 May 2013 09:25:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tcmail33.telekom.de (tcmail33.telekom.de [80.149.113.247]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 976F821F972E for ; Fri, 3 May 2013 08:23:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from he113657.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.99.17]) by tcmail31.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 03 May 2013 17:23:26 +0200 Received: from HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM ([10.134.93.12]) by HE113657.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Fri, 3 May 2013 17:23:26 +0200 From: To: Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 17:23:32 +0200 Thread-Topic: [Softwires] Provisioning Format for CPE BR/lwAFTR Address Thread-Index: Ac5IEifrK+nACJCNScCIQCZK1J3oTA== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <513D633E-901B-41FE-9738-5A59A2E61690@employees.org> Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.2.130206 acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: softwires@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Softwires] Provisioning Format for CPE BR/lwAFTR Address 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, 03 May 2013 16:25:22 -0000 Hi Ole, See inline. Cheers, Ian >Ian, > >> Sorry to dig this one up again, but although there has been a fair bit >>of discussion around the topic, I don't think that we have so far >>reached an agreement on how to provision sw CPEs with the address of the >>concentrator for MAP-E and lw4o6. We need to get a final answer on this >>as there's a few drafts (softwire-unified-cpe, softwire-map-dhcp, >>softwire-lw4over6) that are relying on it. >>=20 >> To try and summarise what's already out there: >> The Unified CPE & lw4o6 drafts propose the use of DHCPv6 Option 64 (the >>DS-Lite AFTR FQDN option) >> Map-dhcp describes the use of the default mapping rule (DMR) to provide >>the /128 of the BR >>=20 >> I think that it's reasonable to say that both work =AD I.e. They contain >>enough information to provision the client with the /128 of the >>concentrator so that it can send traffic. >>=20 >> Here are the arguments for/against each that I've seen. I've tried to >>list all the ones that I've seen, so if I've missed any, then please add >>them: >>=20 >> DHCPv6 Option 64 >> Pros >> FQDN means that DNS round-robin load balancing could be used > >RFC6334 specifies that only the first AAAA should be used. [ian] Checking 6334 section 5 - "If any DNS response contains more than one IPv6 address, the B4 system picks only one IPv6 address and uses it as a remote tunnel endpoint for the interface being configured in the current message exchange." So you could use Option 64/DNS to provision multiple endpoints. You'd need another mechanism (e.g. The bfd model) to detect failure and take advantage of it, though. > >> Reuse of an existing option >>=20 >> Cons >> Can not be extended with additional sub-options > >the CE needs to deal with DNS TTL and the added complexity of having the >resulting "lifetime" of the >default router be different than the lifetime of the address/mechanism. > >only one BR can be configured > >> map-dhcp DMR >> Pros >> Option has an 'encapsulated options' field, so could be extended with >>additional functionality (although no additional functionality has >>currently been proposed at this stage) >>=20 >> Cons >> Only one DMR /128 can be provisioned to a client, so round robin load >>balancing can't be used > >you can use anycast. [ian] You can. But then, why do you need the list of addresses suggested below?=20 > >> May conflict with the MAP-T (>be out of scope for this discussion, but if we are following the >>mechanisms described in Unified CPE so that a CPE can work out which SW >>mode to configure, then a dedicated MAP-T sub-option (not shared by any >>other mode) is needed. This is related to conversations that I've had >>around extending the Unified CPE model for other softwire approaches. >>=20 >> My view: If there is additional functionality required in this option, >>over an above the provisioning of a /128 prefix for the concentrator, >>then the MAP DMR (limited to MAP-E) is the clear choice. However, if no >>such functionality is needed, then we should re-use Option 64. > >does anyone know why a FQDN (with restrictions) was chosen for DS-lite? > >considerations: > - MAP: should BR be inside or outside of the domain. if inside use an >IPv4 address, if outside use an IPv6 address. > (I believe we have agreed on outside, and for LW46 it must always be >outside). [ian] I think it's simpler just to use outside as a single approach. > - should the CE have multiple BRs? and if so, what should it do between >them? load-balance? > the choice in 6rd was to allow for multiple BRs, but not specify how >multiple BRs could be used > >my preference is for a simple list of IPv6 BR addresses. i.e. none of the >two above options. [ian] As long as this is done as a separate option to the DMR, then I think this would work. > >cheers, >Ole From xing@cernet.edu.cn Mon May 6 07:36:45 2013 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 D33FC21F861B for ; Mon, 6 May 2013 07:36:45 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wunPPXtVjVYl for ; Mon, 6 May 2013 07:36:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cernet.edu.cn (cernet.edu.cn [202.112.39.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 699F021F938E for ; Mon, 6 May 2013 07:36:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [125.34.44.208]) by centos (Coremail) with SMTP id AQAAf3C7ft9qv4dRD1khAA--.824S5; Mon, 06 May 2013 22:34:19 +0800 (CST) Message-ID: <5187BFF0.2030306@cernet.edu.cn> Date: Mon, 06 May 2013 22:36:32 +0800 From: Xing Li User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ian.farrer@telekom.de References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-CM-TRANSID: AQAAf3C7ft9qv4dRD1khAA--.824S5 X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvJXoWxJFWkZrykKw43WFy8AF13Arb_yoW5ArykpF 4Svw17Ca1ktws7Cw1kJw48Ar1Yyr4fKFy5Xr15Gr18A343CF18tw10ga1Fy3srCrZ5tFnI vrW2gF1DGF1qyFJanT9S1TB71UUUUUUqnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUUqvb7Iv0xC_Kw4lb4IE77IF4wAFF20E14v26r4j6ryUM7CY07I2 0VC2zVCF04k26cxKx2IYs7xG6rWj6s0DM7CIcVAFz4kK6r1j6r18M28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rw A2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_JF4l84ACjcxK6xIIjxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Gr0_ Cr1l84ACjcxK6I8E87Iv67AKxVWxJr0_GcWl84ACjcxK6I8E87Iv6xkF7I0E14v26rxl6s 0DM2AIxVAIcxkEcVAq07x20xvEncxIr21l5I8CrVACY4xI64kE6c02F40Ex7xfMcIj6xII jxv20xvE14v26r106r15McIj6I8E87Iv67AKxVWUJVW8JwAm72CE4IkC6x0Yz7v_Jr0_Gr 1lF7xvr2IY64vIr41lc2xSY4AK67AK6ry5MxAIw28IcxkI7VAKI48JMI8I3I0E5I8CrVAF wI0_Jr0_Jr4lx2IqxVCjr7xvwVAFwI0_JrI_JrWlx4CE17CEb7AF67AKxVWUXVWUAwCIc4 0Y0x0EwIxGrwCI42IY6xIIjxv20xvE14v26r1j6r1xMIIF0xvE2Ix0cI8IcVCY1x0267AK xVWUJVW8JwCI42IY6xAIw20EY4v20xvaj40_Zr0_Wr1UMIIF0xvEx4A2jsIE14v26r4j6F 4UMIIF0xvEx4A2jsIEc7CjxVAFwI0_Gr0_Gr1UYxBIdaVFxhVjvjDU0xZFpf9x07bnzuZU UUUU= X-CM-SenderInfo: p0lqwqxfhu0vvwohv3gofq/ Cc: softwires@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Softwires] Provisioning Format for CPE BR/lwAFTR Address 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, 06 May 2013 14:36:46 -0000 Hi, Ian and All, Thanks for your mail. I believe the DMR should contain the prefix and prefix-length (the CIDR style), then the encapsulation mode MAP-E, lw4o6 and DS-lite will have /128; the translation mode MAP-T will have /64, the 464xlat will have /96. This is also fully compatible with RFC6052 with prefix lengths of /32, /40,/48, /56, /64 and /96. The MAP-DHCP specification is using this method and it works in our testing environment. Regards, xing ian.farrer@telekom.de 写道: > Hi, > > Sorry to dig this one up again, but although there has been a fair bit > of discussion around the topic, I don't think that we have so far > reached an agreement on how to provision sw CPEs with the address of > the concentrator for MAP-E and lw4o6. We need to get a final answer on > this as there's a few drafts (softwire-unified-cpe, softwire-map-dhcp, > softwire-lw4over6) that are relying on it. > > To try and summarise what's already out there: > The Unified CPE & lw4o6 drafts propose the use of DHCPv6 Option 64 > (the DS-Lite AFTR FQDN option) > Map-dhcp describes the use of the default mapping rule (DMR) to > provide the /128 of the BR > > I think that it's reasonable to say that both work – I.e. They contain > enough information to provision the client with the /128 of the > concentrator so that it can send traffic. > > Here are the arguments for/against each that I've seen. I've tried to > list all the ones that I've seen, so if I've missed any, then please > add them: > > DHCPv6 Option 64 > Pros > FQDN means that DNS round-robin load balancing could be used > Reuse of an existing option > > Cons > Can not be extended with additional sub-options > > map-dhcp DMR > Pros > Option has an 'encapsulated options' field, so could be extended with > additional functionality (although no additional functionality has > currently been proposed at this stage) > > Cons > Only one DMR /128 can be provisioned to a client, so round robin load > balancing can't be used > May conflict with the MAP-T ( to be out of scope for this discussion, but if we are following the > mechanisms described in Unified CPE so that a CPE can work out which > SW mode to configure, then a dedicated MAP-T sub-option (not shared by > any other mode) is needed. This is related to conversations that I've > had around extending the Unified CPE model for other softwire approaches. > > My view: If there is additional functionality required in this option, > over an above the provisioning of a /128 prefix for the concentrator, > then the MAP DMR (limited to MAP-E) is the clear choice. However, if > no such functionality is needed, then we should re-use Option 64. > > Cheers, > Ian > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu May 9 20:04:57 2013 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 73D4D21F9019; Thu, 9 May 2013 20:04:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.469 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.131, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qk90rtAYCvPQ; Thu, 9 May 2013 20:04:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A30321F8F4D; Thu, 9 May 2013 20:04:57 -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: 4.44.p7 Message-ID: <20130510030456.23881.84219.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 09 May 2013 20:04:56 -0700 Cc: softwires@ietf.org Subject: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-09.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, 10 May 2013 03:04:57 -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 : Public IPv4 over IPv6 Access Network Author(s) : Yong Cui Jianping Wu Peng Wu Olivier Vautrin Yiu L. Lee Filename : draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-09.txt Pages : 13 Date : 2013-05-09 Abstract: When the service provider networks are upgraded to IPv6, end users will continue to demand IPv4 connectivity. This document describes 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. This mechanism features the allocation of full IPv4 address over IPv6 network, and has been used in production for high-end IPv4 users, IPv6 transition of ICPs, etc. 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-4over6-09 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-09 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From internet-drafts@ietf.org Fri May 10 01:07:48 2013 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 319E021F8E4C; Fri, 10 May 2013 01:07:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.508 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.508 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.092, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r10DY4wDTp21; Fri, 10 May 2013 01:07:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91A0521F8C9B; Fri, 10 May 2013 01:07:47 -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: 4.44.p7 Message-ID: <20130510080747.1990.2783.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 01:07:47 -0700 Cc: softwires@ietf.org Subject: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-06.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, 10 May 2013 08:07:48 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Softwires Working Group of the IETF. Title : Mapping of Address and Port with Encapsulation (MAP) Author(s) : Ole Troan Wojciech Dec Xing Li Congxiao Bao Satoru Matsushima Tetsuya Murakami Tom Taylor Filename : draft-ietf-softwire-map-06.txt Pages : 30 Date : 2013-05-10 Abstract: This document describes a mechanism for transporting IPv4 packets across an IPv6 network using IP encapsulation, and a generic mechanism for mapping between IPv6 addresses and IPv4 addresses and transport layer ports. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-06 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-softwire-map-06 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From otroan@employees.org Fri May 10 01:14:21 2013 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 0B99F21F8EAE for ; Fri, 10 May 2013 01:14:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Te5omQjHB86n for ; Fri, 10 May 2013 01:14:16 -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 AAD0E21F8E9A for ; Fri, 10 May 2013 01:14:15 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,646,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="82504864" Received: from ams-core-2.cisco.com ([144.254.72.75]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 May 2013 08:14:13 +0000 Received: from dhcp-10-61-107-24.cisco.com (dhcp-10-61-107-24.cisco.com [10.61.107.24]) by ams-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4A8E6xx015097 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 10 May 2013 08:14:07 GMT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\)) From: Ole Troan In-Reply-To: <515122BF.9070905@ericsson.com> Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 10:14:08 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <515122BF.9070905@ericsson.com> To: Suresh Krishnan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) Cc: Softwires WG , Yong Cui , Ralph Droms Subject: Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-map-05 X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 08:14:21 -0000 > This message starts a two week softwire working group last call on > advancing the draft about providing Mapping of Address and Port with > Encapsulation as a Standards Track RFC. The authors believe that this > version has addressed all the issues raised on the document. The = latest > version of the draft is available at >=20 > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-softwire-map-05.txt > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-05 >=20 > Substantive comments and statements of support/opposition for = advancing > this document should be directed to the mailing list. Editorial > suggestions can be sent directly to the authors. The chairs will send = in > their comments as well during the last call period. This last call = will > conclude on April 9, 2013. all, apologies for the delay in dealing with the WGLC comments. Tom has joined in on the editor team, and we have just posted a revision = 06 that should address the comments received. see:=20 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-06 http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-softwire-map-06 a summary of the WGLC below. ------------------------------------- WGLC: March 26 - April 9 Cameron Byrne: "Source Address / Port spoofing should be explicitly denied" Action: Clarified spoofing rules. s/SHOULD/MUST: A MAP CE receiving an IPv6 packet to its MAP IPv6 address sends this packet to the CE's MAP function where it is decapsulated. All other IPv6 traffic is forwarded as per the CE's IPv6 routing rules. The resulting IPv4 packet is then forwarded to the CE’s NAT44 function where the destination port number MUST be checked against the stateful port mapping session table and the destination port number MUST be mapped to its original value. A MAP BR receiving IPv6 packets selects a best matching MAP domain rule based on a longest address match of the packets' source address against the BR's configured MAP BMR prefix(es), as well as a match of the packet destination address against the configured BR IPv6 address or FMR prefix(es). The selected MAP rule allows the BR to determine the EA-bits from the source IPv6 address. The BR MUST perform a validation of the consistency of the source IPv6 address and source port number for the packet using BMR. If the packets source port number is found to be outside the range allowed for this CE and the BMR, the BR MUST drop the packet and respond with an ICMPv6 "Destination Unreachable, Source address failed ingress/egress policy" (Type 1, Code 5). In order to prevent spoofing of IPv4 addresses, the MAP node MUST validate the embedded IPv4 source address of the encapsulated IPv6 packet with the IPv4 source address it is encapsulated by according to the parameters of the matching mapping rule. If the two source addresses do not match, the packet MUST be dropped and a counter incremented to indicate that a potential spoofing attack may be underway. Additionally, a CE MUST allow forwarding of packets sourced by the configured BR IPv6 address. By default, the CE router MUST drop packets received on the MAP virtual interface (i.e., after decapsulation of IPv6) for IPv4 destinations not for its own IPv4 shared address, full IPv4 address or IPv4 prefix. Nejc =8Akoberne "Validity of the 5th example." Action: While example is correct, clarified example by being explicit = about PSID being provisioned by DHCP. Changed PSID to another value than the examples using EA = bits. "formula for calculating PSID (K) using a port P, ratio R, and M. It is = very non-obvious" Action: None. Tom Taylor In Section 5.2 of -map-05, there is the paragraph: "The MAP subnet ID is defined to be the first subnet (all bits set to zero). Unless configured differently, a MAP node MUST reserve the first IPv6 prefix in an End-user IPv6 prefix for the purpose of MAP." Action: Rewritten to: "The MAP subnet identifier is defined to be the first subnet = (all bits set to zero)." Section 5, bullet 1, Basic Mapping Rule: I wonder if you might make it clear that the relationship between the = BMR and End-User MAP IPv6 Prefix is N:1, like this: "There can only be one Basic Mapping Rule per End-user IPv6 prefix = (although multiple End-User IPv6 Prefixes may share the same Basic = Mapping Rule, leading to provisioning efficiencies at the MAP BR)." Action, added: Basic Mapping Rule (BMR) - mandatory. A CE can be provisioned with multiple End-user IPv6 prefixes. There can only be one Basic Mapping Rule per End-user IPv6 prefix. Although all CE's having End-user IPv6 prefixes within (aggregated by) the same Rule IPv6 prefix may share the same Basic Mapping Rule. In combination with the End-user IPv6 prefix, the Basic Mapping Rule is used to derive the IPv4 prefix, address, or shared address and the PSID assigned to the CE. Section 5.1, Port mapping algorithm: Relabel Figure 2 as follows: "Figure 2: Structure of a Port-Restricted Port Number" Action: Accepted. Put the definition of a before the definition of A. This makes the logic = flow better. Definition of A: add before what is there now: "Selects which range the = port number lies in." Definition of PSID: Add a third sentence: "This is guaranteed by the = algorithm described here." Definition of k-bits: typo s/k^2/2^k/ Action: Accepted. Definition of M, replace present text with: "Selects the specific port = within the particular range specified by the concatenation of A and the = PSID." Action: Accepted. At the end, delete the duplicate sentence: "This algorithm ...contiguous = ranges." Action: Done. Ian Farrer "I have one comment about the current version: It is using an IPv4 = default route as the method for sending traffic out of the MAP domain. = This is likely to cause provisioning complexity and conflicts with two = other related drafts:" Action, rewrite section to:
IPv4 traffic between MAP nodes that are all within one MAP domain is encapsulated in IPv6, with the senders MAP IPv6 address as the IPv6 source address and the receiving MAP node's MAP IPv6 address as the IPv6 destination address. To reach IPv4 destinations outside of the MAP domain, traffic is also encapsulated in IPv6, but the destination IPv6 address is set to the configured IPv6 address of the MAP BR. On the CE, the path to the BR can be represented as a point to point IPv4 over IPv6 tunnel with the source address of the tunnel being the CE's MAP IPv6 address and the BR IPv6 address as the remote tunnel address. When MAP is enabled, a typical CE router will install a default route to the BR. The BR forwards traffic received from the outside to CE's using the normal MAP forwarding rules.
From pengwu.thu@gmail.com Fri May 10 01:37:46 2013 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 62AA521F8AF4 for ; Fri, 10 May 2013 01:37:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EjRonwhb6xGF for ; Fri, 10 May 2013 01:37:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ob0-x233.google.com (mail-ob0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9128521F8AD5 for ; Fri, 10 May 2013 01:37:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ob0-f179.google.com with SMTP id xn12so3935470obc.10 for ; Fri, 10 May 2013 01:37:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=AYERuqIs+XouM2Wwnk3/QPwKl40KhYR1JAG1yr0x9+Y=; b=syY2RNKrUxKvgYv1/IzcvAEIIb/9bmcOZli2CPGxpZLmuXorZmZn8hNkfSEqG4AlCb mcdqE1Ru0AL5KhtThROYCT8oGVc/HyMuiEgVK1yVCAm/McoWlcbqYp8HZ0PgdEquuohm 6qvv1y5qZgLRTbtaCsMs5L6jHWlnQnfUaeEh7ASPkw89zQZzrP4srEncEk1Jqwop1O3a WKYBygjbcEE6L6DKnnVqYnqCjw+5IlYAoq3d6ZrbFYxOBZQrg3SKXHuPv+7UngVXzSJS kEj26ZSY4zAVsqYZVIpacoYFgYGsKYCGqnMyLmx+uaIqy/ZOGw1+ltq5eILT43be+mQr Ih7Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.55.231 with SMTP id v7mr6203804oep.135.1368175065110; Fri, 10 May 2013 01:37:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.60.19.72 with HTTP; Fri, 10 May 2013 01:37:44 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20130510030457.23881.98205.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20130510030457.23881.98205.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 16:37:44 +0800 Message-ID: From: Peng Wu To: Softwires WG Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01176889bf1f8004dc5914e5 Subject: [Softwires] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-09.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, 10 May 2013 08:37:46 -0000 --089e01176889bf1f8004dc5914e5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi all, A new version of draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6 is available now, addressing the results of first-round AD review. The authors would like to thank Ted and Suresh for their detailed, valuable comments and suggestions when reviewing the draft. The major changes from -08 version are: 1) Adjust the language to make it more suitable as an informational document 2) Reword some descriptions to make it more precise and explicit. Best Regards, ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Date: Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:04 AM Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-09.txt To: Jianping Wu , Peng Wu , Yong Cui , Olivier Vautrin < olivier@juniper.net>, "Yiu L. Lee" , Olivier Vautrin A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-09.txt has been successfully submitted by Yong Cui and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6 Revision: 09 Title: Public IPv4 over IPv6 Access Network Creation date: 2013-05-10 Group: softwire Number of pages: 13 URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-09.txt Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6 Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-09 Diff: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-09 Abstract: When the service provider networks are upgraded to IPv6, end users will continue to demand IPv4 connectivity. This document describes 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. This mechanism features the allocation of full IPv4 address over IPv6 network, and has been used in production for high-end IPv4 users, IPv6 transition of ICPs, etc. The IETF Secretariat --089e01176889bf1f8004dc5914e5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=A0Hi all,
=A0
A new version of draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6 is available now, a= ddressing=A0the results of=A0first-round=A0AD review.
The authors would like to thank=A0Ted and Suresh for their detailed, v= aluable comments and suggestions when reviewing the draft.
=A0
The major changes from -08 version are:
=A0
1) Adjust the language to make it more suitable as an informational do= cument
2) Reword=A0some descriptions to make it more precise and = explicit.
=A0
=A0
=A0Best Regards,
---------- Forwar= ded message ----------
From: <internet-drafts@i= etf.org>
Date: Fri, May 10, 2013 at 11:04 AM
Subject: New Version Notification fo= r draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-09.txt
To: Jianping Wu <jianping@cernet.edu.cn>, Peng Wu = <pengwu.thu@gmail.com>, Y= ong Cui <yong@csnet1.c= s.tsinghua.edu.cn>, Olivier Vautrin <olivier@juniper.net>, "Yiu L. Lee" <yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com>, Ol= ivier Vautrin <Olivier@juniper.ne= t>



A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-09.txt
has been successfully submitted by Yong Cui and posted to the
IETF repository.

Filename: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6
Revision: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A009
Title: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Public IPv4 over IPv6 Access Network
Creation date: =A0 2013-05-10
Group: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 softwire
Number of pages: 13
URL: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 http://www.iet= f.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-09.txt
Status: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://datatracker.ietf.org= /doc/draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6
Htmlized: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://tools.ietf.org/html/draf= t-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-09
Diff: =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0http://www.ietf.org= /rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-09

Abstract:
=A0 =A0When the service provider networks are upgraded to IPv6, end users =A0 =A0will continue to demand IPv4 connectivity. =A0This document describe= s a
=A0 =A0mechanism for hosts or customer networks in IPv6 access network to =A0 =A0build bidirectional IPv4 communication with the IPv4 Internet. =A0Th= e
=A0 =A0mechanism follows the hub and spokes softwire model, and uses IPv4-<= br> =A0 =A0over-IPv6 tunnel as basic method to traverse IPv6 network. =A0The bi= -
=A0 =A0directionality of this IPv4 communication is achieved by explicitly<= br> =A0 =A0allocating public IPv4 addresses to end users, as well as maintainin= g
=A0 =A0IPv4-IPv6 address binding on the border relay. =A0This mechanism
=A0 =A0features the allocation of full IPv4 address over IPv6 network, and<= br> =A0 =A0has been used in production for high-end IPv4 users, IPv6 transition=
=A0 =A0of ICPs, etc.




The IETF Secretariat


--089e01176889bf1f8004dc5914e5-- From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Fri May 10 06:45:29 2013 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 65A8021F9048; Fri, 10 May 2013 06:45:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.443 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.443 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.157, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4I7e0jGQHApQ; Fri, 10 May 2013 06:45:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02C9C21F9003; Fri, 10 May 2013 06:45:29 -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: 4.44.p7 Sender: Message-ID: <20130510134528.17047.41924.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 06:45:28 -0700 Cc: softwires@ietf.org Subject: [Softwires] Last Call: (Public IPv4 over IPv6 Access Network) 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: Fri, 10 May 2013 13:45:29 -0000 The IESG has received a request from the Softwires WG (softwire) to consider the following document: - 'Public IPv4 over IPv6 Access Network' 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 2013-05-24. 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 When the service provider networks are upgraded to IPv6, end users will continue to demand IPv4 connectivity. This document describes 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. This mechanism features the allocation of full IPv4 address over IPv6 network, and has been used in production for high-end IPv4 users, IPv6 transition of ICPs, etc. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. From ian.farrer@telekom.de Sat May 11 12:57:22 2013 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 C234421F8B54 for ; Sat, 11 May 2013 12:57:22 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X4vw2c3Upwqu for ; Sat, 11 May 2013 12:57:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tcmail43.telekom.de (tcmail43.telekom.de [80.149.113.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 008D721F8AF8 for ; Sat, 11 May 2013 12:57:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from he113656.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.99.16]) by tcmail41.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 11 May 2013 21:57:12 +0200 Received: from HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM ([10.134.93.12]) by HE113656.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Sat, 11 May 2013 21:57:12 +0200 From: To: , Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 21:57:11 +0200 Thread-Topic: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-map-05 Thread-Index: Ac5NVo08HdcahqqhQC+KSj1QW1ZU/gBKMbSg Message-ID: <8A1B81989BCFAE44A22B2B86BF2B7631898DF9F5E1@HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM> References: <515122BF.9070905@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: 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="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: softwires@ietf.org, cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn, rdroms@cisco.com Subject: Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-map-05 X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 19:57:22 -0000 Hi Ole, Thanks for incorporating my comments into this version. Having re-read this version, there's one thing that I'd like to clarify: Is= the BMR still being proposed as the method for configuring all IPv4 inform= ation, even with the EA=3D0 case? Section 5.2 states: A length of 0 means that no part of the IPv4 address or port is embedded in= the address. Which is OK, if a little ambiguous. Then in example 4 in the Appendix, the BMR is provisioning the /32 IPv4 pre= fix for the client, i.e 1:! mode or 'Binding Mode' to use the Unified CPE t= erminology. I thought that we were going to use the OPTION_MAP_BIND proposed in softwir= e-unified-cpe to tell a lw4o6 CPE, or a MAP CPE to provision the Binding Mo= de. Cheers, Ian -----Original Message----- From: softwires-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] On Beh= alf Of Ole Troan Sent: Freitag, 10. Mai 2013 10:14 To: Suresh Krishnan Cc: Softwires WG; Yong Cui; Ralph Droms Subject: Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-ma= p-05 > This message starts a two week softwire working group last call on=20 > advancing the draft about providing Mapping of Address and Port with=20 > Encapsulation as a Standards Track RFC. The authors believe that this=20 > version has addressed all the issues raised on the document. The=20 > latest version of the draft is available at >=20 > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-softwire-map-05.txt > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-05 >=20 > Substantive comments and statements of support/opposition for=20 > advancing this document should be directed to the mailing list.=20 > Editorial suggestions can be sent directly to the authors. The chairs=20 > will send in their comments as well during the last call period. This=20 > last call will conclude on April 9, 2013. all, apologies for the delay in dealing with the WGLC comments. Tom has joined in on the editor team, and we have just posted a revision 06= that should address the comments received. see:=20 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-06 http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-softwire-map-06 a summary of the WGLC below. ------------------------------------- WGLC: March 26 - April 9 Cameron Byrne: "Source Address / Port spoofing should be explicitly denied" Action: Clarified spoofing rules. s/SHOULD/MUST: A MAP CE receiving an IPv6 packet to its MAP IPv6 address sends this packet to the CE's MAP function where it is decapsulated. All other IPv6 traffic is forwarded as per the CE's IPv6 routing rules. The resulting IPv4 packet is then forwarded to the CE’s NAT44 function where the destination port number MUST be checked against the stateful port mapping session table and the destination port number MUST be mapped to its original value. A MAP BR receiving IPv6 packets selects a best matching MAP domain rule based on a longest address match of the packets' source address against the BR's configured MAP BMR prefix(es), as well as a match of the packet destination address against the configured BR IPv6 address or FMR prefix(es). The selected MAP rule allows the BR to determine the EA-bits from the source IPv6 address. The BR MUST perform a validation of the consistency of the source IPv6 address and source port number for the packet using BMR. If the packets source port number is found to be outside the range allowed for this CE and the BMR, the BR MUST drop the packet and respond with an ICMPv6 "Destination Unreachable, Source address failed ingress/egress policy" (Type 1, Code 5). In order to prevent spoofing of IPv4 addresses, the MAP node MUST validate the embedded IPv4 source address of the encapsulated IPv6 packet with the IPv4 source address it is encapsulated by according to the parameters of the matching mapping rule. If the two source addresses do not match, the packet MUST be dropped and a counter incremented to indicate that a potential spoofing attack may be underway. Additionally, a CE MUST allow forwarding of packets sourced by the configured BR IPv6 address. By default, the CE router MUST drop packets received on the MAP virtual interface (i.e., after decapsulation of IPv6) for IPv4 destinations not for its own IPv4 shared address, full IPv4 address or IPv4 prefix. Nejc =A9koberne "Validity of the 5th example." Action: While example is correct, clarified example by being explicit about= PSID being provisioned by DHCP. Changed PSID to another value than the examples using EA bits. "formula for calculating PSID (K) using a port P, ratio R, and M. It is ver= y non-obvious" Action: None. Tom Taylor In Section 5.2 of -map-05, there is the paragraph: "The MAP subnet ID is defined to be the first subnet (all bits set to zero). Unless configured differently, a MAP node MUST reserve the first IPv6 prefix in an End-user IPv6 prefix for the purpose of MAP." Action: Rewritten to: "The MAP subnet identifier is defined to be the first subnet (all bits set to zero)." Section 5, bullet 1, Basic Mapping Rule: I wonder if you might make it clear that the relationship between the BMR a= nd End-User MAP IPv6 Prefix is N:1, like this: "There can only be one Basic Mapping Rule per End-user IPv6 prefix (althoug= h multiple End-User IPv6 Prefixes may share the same Basic Mapping Rule, le= ading to provisioning efficiencies at the MAP BR)." Action, added: Basic Mapping Rule (BMR) - mandatory. A CE can be provisioned with multiple End-user IPv6 prefixes. There can only be one Basic Mapping Rule per End-user IPv6 prefix. Although all CE's having End-user IPv6 prefixes within (aggregated by) the same Rule IPv6 prefix may share the same Basic Mapping Rule. In combination with the End-user IPv6 prefix, the Basic Mapping Rule is used to derive the IPv4 prefix, address, or shared address and the PSID assigned to the CE. Section 5.1, Port mapping algorithm: Relabel Figure 2 as follows: "Figure 2: Structure of a Port-Restricted Port Number" Action: Accepted. Put the definition of a before the definition of A. This makes the logic fl= ow better. Definition of A: add before what is there now: "Selects which range the por= t number lies in." Definition of PSID: Add a third sentence: "This is guaranteed by the algori= thm described here." Definition of k-bits: typo s/k^2/2^k/ Action: Accepted. Definition of M, replace present text with: "Selects the specific port with= in the particular range specified by the concatenation of A and the PSID." Action: Accepted. At the end, delete the duplicate sentence: "This algorithm ...contiguous ra= nges." Action: Done. Ian Farrer "I have one comment about the current version: It is using an IPv4 default = route as the method for sending traffic out of the MAP domain. This is like= ly to cause provisioning complexity and conflicts with two other related dr= afts:" Action, rewrite section to:
IPv4 traffic between MAP nodes that are all within one MAP domain is encapsulated in IPv6, with the senders MAP IPv6 address as the IPv6 source address and the receiving MAP node's MAP IPv6 address as the IPv6 destination address. To reach IPv4 destinations outside of the MAP domain, traffic is also encapsulated in IPv6, but the destination IPv6 address is set to the configured IPv6 address of the MAP BR. On the CE, the path to the BR can be represented as a point to point IPv4 over IPv6 tunnel with the source address of the tunnel being the CE's MAP IPv6 address and the BR IPv6 address as the remote tunnel address. When MAP is enabled, a typical CE router will install a default route to the BR. The BR forwards traffic received from the outside to CE's using the normal MAP forwarding rules.
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires From otroan@employees.org Mon May 13 02:18:49 2013 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 8A84621F93E6 for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 02:18:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GN4svxPWLrNo for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 02:18:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-4.cisco.com (ams-iport-4.cisco.com [144.254.224.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80F5F21F93E5 for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 02:18:40 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,660,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="13900545" Received: from ams-core-4.cisco.com ([144.254.72.77]) by ams-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 May 2013 09:18:39 +0000 Received: from dhcp-lys02-vla252-10-147-116-53.cisco.com (dhcp-lys02-vla252-10-147-116-53.cisco.com [10.147.116.53]) by ams-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4D9IaV9001676 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 13 May 2013 09:18:37 GMT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\)) From: Ole Troan In-Reply-To: <8A1B81989BCFAE44A22B2B86BF2B7631898DF9F5E1@HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM> Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 11:18:36 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <3AF2EC89-2B64-40A2-A1FB-E5131A76D48D@employees.org> References: <515122BF.9070905@ericsson.com> <8A1B81989BCFAE44A22B2B86BF2B7631898DF9F5E1@HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM> To: ian.farrer@telekom.de X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) Cc: softwires@ietf.org, cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn, rdroms@cisco.com Subject: Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-map-05 X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 09:18:49 -0000 Ian, > Thanks for incorporating my comments into this version. >=20 > Having re-read this version, there's one thing that I'd like to = clarify: Is the BMR still being proposed as the method for configuring = all IPv4 information, even with the EA=3D0 case? Section 5.2 states: >=20 > A length of 0 means that no part of the IPv4 address or port is = embedded in the address. yes. that's is the meaning of EA=3D0. > Which is OK, if a little ambiguous. how so? > Then in example 4 in the Appendix, the BMR is provisioning the /32 = IPv4 prefix for the client, i.e 1:! mode or 'Binding Mode' to use the = Unified CPE terminology. >=20 > I thought that we were going to use the OPTION_MAP_BIND proposed in = softwire-unified-cpe to tell a lw4o6 CPE, or a MAP CPE to provision the = Binding Mode. the MAP BMR isn't only a 'provisioning construct' it is also used for = forwarding. the MAP document doesn't say anything about how the BMR is provisioned. if you created a separate DHCP option for the corner case of EA=3D0, how = should a Rule IPv4 prefix length of 32 with EA=3D0, be handled? seems like we then create more ambiguity... cheers, Ole From ian.farrer@telekom.de Mon May 13 02:56:43 2013 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 6903021F93E9 for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 02:56:43 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id USHCvM9d++N2 for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 02:56:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tcmail23.telekom.de (tcmail23.telekom.de [80.149.113.243]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1116021F9424 for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 02:56:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from he113675.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.99.28]) by tcmail21.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 13 May 2013 11:56:37 +0200 Received: from HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM ([10.134.93.12]) by HE113675.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Mon, 13 May 2013 11:56:36 +0200 From: To: Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 11:56:38 +0200 Thread-Topic: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-map-05 Thread-Index: Ac5PwCgYfvSCqjuOTReY+P/KB4Gxjw== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <3AF2EC89-2B64-40A2-A1FB-E5131A76D48D@employees.org> Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.4.130416 acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: softwires@ietf.org, cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn, rdroms@cisco.com Subject: Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-map-05 X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 09:56:43 -0000 Hi Ole, >Ian, > >> Thanks for incorporating my comments into this version. >>=20 >> Having re-read this version, there's one thing that I'd like to >>clarify: Is the BMR still being proposed as the method for configuring >>all IPv4 information, even with the EA=3D0 case? Section 5.2 states: >>=20 >> A length of 0 means that no part of the IPv4 address or port is >>embedded in the address. > >yes. that's is the meaning of EA=3D0. > >> Which is OK, if a little ambiguous. > >how so? [ian] The description says what it doesn't do without saying what it does do. That's why I would say it's ambiguous. > >> Then in example 4 in the Appendix, the BMR is provisioning the /32 IPv4 >>prefix for the client, i.e 1:! mode or 'Binding Mode' to use the Unified >>CPE terminology. >>=20 >> I thought that we were going to use the OPTION_MAP_BIND proposed in >>softwire-unified-cpe to tell a lw4o6 CPE, or a MAP CPE to provision the >>Binding Mode. > >the MAP BMR isn't only a 'provisioning construct' it is also used for >forwarding. >the MAP document doesn't say anything about how the BMR is provisioned. > >if you created a separate DHCP option for the corner case of EA=3D0, how >should a Rule IPv4 prefix length of 32 with EA=3D0, be handled? >seems like we then create more ambiguity... [ian] As I proposed in Orlando (second to last slide): http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/slides/slides-86-softwire-3.pdf No objections were raised to this. > >cheers, >Ole > Cheers, Ian From otroan@employees.org Mon May 13 03:21:50 2013 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 CE05521F9425 for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 03:21:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6K6Rz-zAJHiC for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 03:21:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-4.cisco.com (ams-iport-4.cisco.com [144.254.224.147]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B85D621F9433 for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 03:21:33 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,660,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="13901787" Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.72.81]) by ams-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 May 2013 10:21:32 +0000 Received: from dhcp-lys02-vla252-10-147-116-53.cisco.com (dhcp-lys02-vla252-10-147-116-53.cisco.com [10.147.116.53]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4DALUdx009113 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 13 May 2013 10:21:30 GMT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\)) From: Ole Troan In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 12:21:30 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) Cc: softwires@ietf.org, cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn, rdroms@cisco.com Subject: Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-map-05 X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 10:21:50 -0000 Ian, >>> Thanks for incorporating my comments into this version. >>>=20 >>> Having re-read this version, there's one thing that I'd like to >>> clarify: Is the BMR still being proposed as the method for = configuring >>> all IPv4 information, even with the EA=3D0 case? Section 5.2 states: >>>=20 >>> A length of 0 means that no part of the IPv4 address or port is >>> embedded in the address. >>=20 >> yes. that's is the meaning of EA=3D0. >>=20 >>> Which is OK, if a little ambiguous. >>=20 >> how so? >=20 > [ian] The description says what it doesn't do without saying what it = does > do. That's why I would say it's ambiguous. there was a lot of pushback from describing 1:1 mode in more detail in = the MAP base document. >>> Then in example 4 in the Appendix, the BMR is provisioning the /32 = IPv4 >>> prefix for the client, i.e 1:! mode or 'Binding Mode' to use the = Unified >>> CPE terminology. >>>=20 >>> I thought that we were going to use the OPTION_MAP_BIND proposed in >>> softwire-unified-cpe to tell a lw4o6 CPE, or a MAP CPE to provision = the >>> Binding Mode. >>=20 >> the MAP BMR isn't only a 'provisioning construct' it is also used for >> forwarding. >> the MAP document doesn't say anything about how the BMR is = provisioned. >>=20 >> if you created a separate DHCP option for the corner case of EA=3D0, = how >> should a Rule IPv4 prefix length of 32 with EA=3D0, be handled? >> seems like we then create more ambiguity... >=20 > [ian] As I proposed in Orlando (second to last slide): > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/slides/slides-86-softwire-3.pdf >=20 > No objections were raised to this. see section 7. EA=3D0 and a configured Rule IPv4 prefix of /32 results in 1:1/binding = mode. _how_ that Rule IPv4 prefix is configured is out of scope of the base = MAP document. my previous comment was to the provisioning document, where I think it = would be ambiguous to have two options to do the same thing. do you have any proposed changes to MAP base, or is this for the = provisioning document? cheers, Ole= From ian.farrer@telekom.de Mon May 13 05:45:47 2013 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 6DB1321F940B for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 05:45:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.800, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_22=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tUQH47tqaCiY for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 05:45:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tcmail33.telekom.de (tcmail33.telekom.de [80.149.113.247]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15EF021F93E9 for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 05:45:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from he113472.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.130]) by tcmail31.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 13 May 2013 14:45:41 +0200 Received: from HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM ([10.134.93.12]) by HE113472.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Mon, 13 May 2013 14:45:41 +0200 From: To: Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 14:45:42 +0200 Thread-Topic: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-map-05 Thread-Index: Ac5P18asVbYWYMOpRLe2vtgelqJeVw== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.4.130416 acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: softwires@ietf.org, cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn, rdroms@cisco.com Subject: Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-map-05 X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 12:45:47 -0000 Hi Ole, Comments in line. Cheers, Ian On 13/05/2013 12:21, "Ole Troan" wrote: >Ian, > >>>> Thanks for incorporating my comments into this version. >>>>=20 >>>> Having re-read this version, there's one thing that I'd like to >>>> clarify: Is the BMR still being proposed as the method for configuring >>>> all IPv4 information, even with the EA=3D0 case? Section 5.2 states: >>>>=20 >>>> A length of 0 means that no part of the IPv4 address or port is >>>> embedded in the address. >>>=20 >>> yes. that's is the meaning of EA=3D0. >>>=20 >>>> Which is OK, if a little ambiguous. >>>=20 >>> how so? >>=20 >> [ian] The description says what it doesn't do without saying what it >>does >> do. That's why I would say it's ambiguous. > >there was a lot of pushback from describing 1:1 mode in more detail in >the MAP base >document. [ian] I recall:-) As I said, I'm OK with what it says and the ambiguity is not really a problem in it's own right. It'sl Ex 4 in the appendix where it states that you provision v4 using BMR/FMR. > >>>> Then in example 4 in the Appendix, the BMR is provisioning the /32 >>>>IPv4 >>>> prefix for the client, i.e 1:! mode or 'Binding Mode' to use the >>>>Unified >>>> CPE terminology. >>>>=20 >>>> I thought that we were going to use the OPTION_MAP_BIND proposed in >>>> softwire-unified-cpe to tell a lw4o6 CPE, or a MAP CPE to provision >>>>the >>>> Binding Mode. >>>=20 >>> the MAP BMR isn't only a 'provisioning construct' it is also used for >>> forwarding. >>> the MAP document doesn't say anything about how the BMR is provisioned. >>>=20 >>> if you created a separate DHCP option for the corner case of EA=3D0, ho= w >>> should a Rule IPv4 prefix length of 32 with EA=3D0, be handled? >>> seems like we then create more ambiguity... >>=20 >> [ian] As I proposed in Orlando (second to last slide): >> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/slides/slides-86-softwire-3.pdf >>=20 >> No objections were raised to this. > >see section 7. >EA=3D0 and a configured Rule IPv4 prefix of /32 results in 1:1/binding mod= e. > >_how_ that Rule IPv4 prefix is configured is out of scope of the base MAP >document. [ian] App. A ex 4 does state that the IPv4 config is taken from the BMR/FMR and 5.2/5.3 state the parameters for constructing BMRs/FMRs. Although it doesn't state how (as in the configuration method / protocol) this is configured, the parameters are stated, even though many of them are not required for 1:1. > >my previous comment was to the provisioning document, where I think it >would be ambiguous to have two options >to do the same thing. > >do you have any proposed changes to MAP base, or is this for the >provisioning document? [ian] I think that the simplest way to make all this work is together is to separate out the BMR for mesh mode and the 1:1 mapping rule. As long as the BMR is described as the mechanism for provisioning 1:1 mode, then the additional configuration parameters of the BMR must also be conveyed (I.e. all of the things that are detailed in section 5.2), even though many of them are only relevant for mesh. So, the change in the MAP base draft would be: if EA=3D0, then the IPv4 configuration / port set is not provisioned within the BMR and is conveyed through another means (static, OPTION_MAP_BIND, DHCPv4 over DHCPv6 or whatever). This gives us the single method of configuring MAP 1:1/lw4o6. The MAP DHCP option draft then needs to be brought in line with this. > >cheers, >Ole From otroan@employees.org Mon May 13 06:37:05 2013 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 EF74E21F9588 for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 06:37:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id STYLPb6Ms5qZ for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 06:36:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ams-iport-3.cisco.com (ams-iport-3.cisco.com [144.254.224.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DBC921F9539 for ; Mon, 13 May 2013 06:36:58 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,662,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="13437636" Received: from ams-core-4.cisco.com ([144.254.72.77]) by ams-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 May 2013 13:36:57 +0000 Received: from dhcp-lys02-vla252-10-147-116-53.cisco.com (dhcp-lys02-vla252-10-147-116-53.cisco.com [10.147.116.53]) by ams-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4DDatfF006767 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 13 May 2013 13:36:55 GMT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\)) From: Ole Troan In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 15:36:54 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) Cc: softwires@ietf.org, cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn, rdroms@cisco.com Subject: Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-map-05 X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 13:37:05 -0000 Ian, >> my previous comment was to the provisioning document, where I think = it >> would be ambiguous to have two options >> to do the same thing. >>=20 >> do you have any proposed changes to MAP base, or is this for the >> provisioning document? >=20 > [ian] I think that the simplest way to make all this work is together = is > to separate out the BMR for mesh mode and the 1:1 mapping rule. As = long as > the BMR is described as the mechanism for provisioning 1:1 mode, then = the > additional configuration parameters of the BMR must also be conveyed = (I.e. > all of the things that are detailed in section 5.2), even though many = of > them are only relevant for mesh. a BMR consists of 3 elements, a Rule IPv6 prefix, a Rule IPv4 prefix and = the EA bits length. only the Rule IPv6 prefix isn't relevant for 1:1. if _that_ is a problem then each element could be suboptions in DHCP, = but I'm not sure that's worth the complexity either. > So, the change in the MAP base draft would be: if EA=3D0, then the = IPv4 > configuration / port set is not provisioned within the BMR and is = conveyed > through another means (static, OPTION_MAP_BIND, DHCPv4 over DHCPv6 or > whatever). This gives us the single method of configuring MAP = 1:1/lw4o6. creating another corner case that an implementation must take into = regard. a MAP node provisioned with no BMR and only OPTION_MAP_BIND could just = map (sic) the information in the OPTION_MAP_BIND into a BMR. my argument is that this is a detail that can be taken care of in the = MAP DHCP draft, and that MAP base can still make the assumption that all its functions = are done based on the specified BMR/FMRs. there shouldn't be anything in MAP base that forces a particular layout of the provisioning information. > The MAP DHCP option draft then needs to be brought in line with this. yes, the MAP DHCP draft must be updated no matter what. cheers, Ole= From despres.remi@laposte.net Tue May 14 07:04:10 2013 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 CF3B321F9049 for ; Tue, 14 May 2013 07:04:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.949 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tEjPwA6q0Sl7 for ; Tue, 14 May 2013 07:04:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp22.services.sfr.fr (smtp22.services.sfr.fr [93.17.128.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEA4021F8F2C for ; Tue, 14 May 2013 07:03:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from filter.sfr.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by msfrf2203.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id ECA657000DDA; Tue, 14 May 2013 16:03:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.0.21] (unknown [78.193.136.169]) by msfrf2203.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id C7EC27000DD9; Tue, 14 May 2013 16:03:56 +0200 (CEST) X-SFR-UUID: 20130514140356819.C7EC27000DD9@msfrf2203.sfr.fr From: =?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9mi_Despr=E9s?= Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 16:03:55 +0200 Message-Id: <35162B35-6B97-4D71-9350-F9EAAB797C23@laposte.net> To: Sheng Jiang Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\)) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: Softwires WG Subject: [Softwires] 4rd update concerning NAT64+ 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, 14 May 2013 14:04:11 -0000 Dear Sheng, This is to confirm on the WG list what I discussed with you concerning = 4rd and NAT64+. 1. Adaptation of the 4rd draft to 6man precluding IID-range reservations, = appears to have been incomplete: - Without a 4rd IID-range reservation, a NAT64+ can no longer = distinguish 4rd-capable CEs from other hosts or CEs on the sole basis = that their IPv6 addresses contain the 4rd tag. (A host behind a non-4rd = CPE MAY be configured with such an address, e.g. by manual configuration = ignoring the u/g bit meaning of RFC4291.) =20 - The following sentence of R-11 is therefore no longer applicable:=20 "The NAT64+, being NAT64 conforming [RFC6146], uses (b) as source = addresses that depend on IPv4 sources. It finds in its binding = information base addresses conforming to (a). Finding the 4rd tag in = them, it uses 4rd tunneling rather than IPv4 to IPv6 translation." 2. The following is an example of how to restore full consistency of the = specification: (1) Delete the above sentence. (2) Add a new R-xx saying: "Each NAT64+ MUST accept IPv6 packets whose destination addresses = contain its NAT64+ prefix, necessarily a /64, followed by the 4rd tag. = It MUST note, e.g. in its Binding Information Base, which IPv6/IPv4 = bindings have been created with such 4rd destination addresses (as = opposed to destination addresses containing the "u" octet of [RFC6052]). = In the IPv4 to IPv6 direction, it MUST use IPv6 source addresses = containing the 4rd tag, and conforming to of Figure 6 (b), for all = bindings noted as created with 4rd destination addresses. 3. This contribution is intended to be limited to its technical substance, = without view on how to best handle the issue at this point (before or = after WGLC? With which precise text? ...).=20 What will be decided in the WG should be fine AFAIAC. Thank you and best regards, RD= From ian.farrer@telekom.de Wed May 15 00:21:55 2013 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 E04FB21F889C for ; Wed, 15 May 2013 00:21:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.349 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YAN5mbBnAdHS for ; Wed, 15 May 2013 00:21:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tcmail33.telekom.de (tcmail33.telekom.de [80.149.113.247]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEFCB21F8EC1 for ; Wed, 15 May 2013 00:21:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from he113470.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.128]) by tcmail31.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 15 May 2013 09:21:45 +0200 Received: from HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM ([10.134.93.12]) by HE113470.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Wed, 15 May 2013 09:21:45 +0200 From: To: Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 09:21:42 +0200 Thread-Topic: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-map-05 Thread-Index: Ac5RPNrJ90vNY9CSRgCVxSspkxWqaw== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.4.130416 acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: softwires@ietf.org, cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn, rdroms@cisco.com Subject: Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-map-05 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, 15 May 2013 07:21:56 -0000 On 13/05/2013 15:36, "Ole Troan" wrote: >Ian, > >>> my previous comment was to the provisioning document, where I think it >>> would be ambiguous to have two options >>> to do the same thing. >>>=20 >>> do you have any proposed changes to MAP base, or is this for the >>> provisioning document? >>=20 >> [ian] I think that the simplest way to make all this work is together is >> to separate out the BMR for mesh mode and the 1:1 mapping rule. As long >>as >> the BMR is described as the mechanism for provisioning 1:1 mode, then >>the >> additional configuration parameters of the BMR must also be conveyed >>(I.e. >> all of the things that are detailed in section 5.2), even though many of >> them are only relevant for mesh. > >a BMR consists of 3 elements, a Rule IPv6 prefix, a Rule IPv4 prefix and >the >EA bits length. only the Rule IPv6 prefix isn't relevant for 1:1. >if _that_ is a problem then each element could be suboptions in DHCP, but >I'm not >sure that's worth the complexity either. [ian] It could be one way of doing it, but having just looked at what a 'composite' set of sub-options would look like for this, it's going to get pretty ugly. > >> So, the change in the MAP base draft would be: if EA=3D0, then the IPv4 >> configuration / port set is not provisioned within the BMR and is >>conveyed >> through another means (static, OPTION_MAP_BIND, DHCPv4 over DHCPv6 or >> whatever). This gives us the single method of configuring MAP 1:1/lw4o6. > >creating another corner case that an implementation must take into regard. > >a MAP node provisioned with no BMR and only OPTION_MAP_BIND could just >map (sic) >the information in the OPTION_MAP_BIND into a BMR. > >my argument is that this is a detail that can be taken care of in the MAP >DHCP draft, >and that MAP base can still make the assumption that all its functions >are done >based on the specified BMR/FMRs. there shouldn't be anything in MAP base >that forces a particular layout of the provisioning information. [ian] I agree, but the way that the draft is at the moment, there is a direct line between v4 provisioning with BMR/FMR, the parameters that BMRs/FMRs contain and then (in the MAP DHCP draft) the format and interpretation of the BMR/FMR. If you remove the BMR/FMR provisioning in Ex. 4 and also sec 5.2 para 3, then you've opened it up so that you don't force (or strongly imply) a particular layout of the provisioning information. > >> The MAP DHCP option draft then needs to be brought in line with this. > >yes, the MAP DHCP draft must be updated no matter what. > >cheers, >Ole From otroan@employees.org Wed May 15 02:17:22 2013 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 EAE2E21F8EAD for ; Wed, 15 May 2013 02:17:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id la4sU+L384dP for ; Wed, 15 May 2013 02:17:16 -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 5E3B221F8E56 for ; Wed, 15 May 2013 02:17:09 -0700 (PDT) X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,675,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="82596806" Received: from ams-core-2.cisco.com ([144.254.72.75]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 15 May 2013 09:17:07 +0000 Received: from dhcp-lys01-vla250-10-147-113-67.cisco.com (dhcp-lys01-vla250-10-147-113-67.cisco.com [10.147.113.67]) by ams-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4F9H5is023903 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 15 May 2013 09:17:05 GMT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\)) From: Ole Troan In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 11:17:05 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <230DF246-17FC-464F-BEB1-7ABAF64F4608@employees.org> References: To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503) Cc: softwires@ietf.org, cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn, rdroms@cisco.com Subject: Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-map-05 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, 15 May 2013 09:17:22 -0000 Ian, >>>> my previous comment was to the provisioning document, where I think = it >>>> would be ambiguous to have two options >>>> to do the same thing. >>>>=20 >>>> do you have any proposed changes to MAP base, or is this for the >>>> provisioning document? >>>=20 >>> [ian] I think that the simplest way to make all this work is = together is >>> to separate out the BMR for mesh mode and the 1:1 mapping rule. As = long >>> as >>> the BMR is described as the mechanism for provisioning 1:1 mode, = then >>> the >>> additional configuration parameters of the BMR must also be conveyed >>> (I.e. >>> all of the things that are detailed in section 5.2), even though = many of >>> them are only relevant for mesh. >>=20 >> a BMR consists of 3 elements, a Rule IPv6 prefix, a Rule IPv4 prefix = and >> the >> EA bits length. only the Rule IPv6 prefix isn't relevant for 1:1. >> if _that_ is a problem then each element could be suboptions in DHCP, = but >> I'm not >> sure that's worth the complexity either. >=20 > [ian] It could be one way of doing it, but having just looked at what = a > 'composite' set of sub-options would look like for this, it's going to = get > pretty ugly. would think so. >>> So, the change in the MAP base draft would be: if EA=3D0, then the = IPv4 >>> configuration / port set is not provisioned within the BMR and is >>> conveyed >>> through another means (static, OPTION_MAP_BIND, DHCPv4 over DHCPv6 = or >>> whatever). This gives us the single method of configuring MAP = 1:1/lw4o6. >>=20 >> creating another corner case that an implementation must take into = regard. >>=20 >> a MAP node provisioned with no BMR and only OPTION_MAP_BIND could = just >> map (sic) >> the information in the OPTION_MAP_BIND into a BMR. >>=20 >> my argument is that this is a detail that can be taken care of in the = MAP >> DHCP draft, >> and that MAP base can still make the assumption that all its = functions >> are done >> based on the specified BMR/FMRs. there shouldn't be anything in MAP = base >> that forces a particular layout of the provisioning information. >=20 > [ian] I agree, but the way that the draft is at the moment, there is a > direct line between v4 provisioning with BMR/FMR, the parameters that > BMRs/FMRs contain and then (in the MAP DHCP draft) the format and > interpretation of the BMR/FMR. >=20 > If you remove the BMR/FMR provisioning in Ex. 4 and also sec 5.2 para = 3, > then you've opened it up so that you don't force (or strongly imply) a > particular layout of the provisioning information. many functions in MAP are based on the BMR/FMR those cannot be removed = from the specification. the mapping rules imply what needs to be provisioned, but it doesn't = force a particular layout. perhaps we should circle back and look at the provisioning options = again, and see if that will resolve this. if we end up with two provisioning options for the same = thing, then there is no unification at that level. of course a MAP implementation might take something like = an OPTION_MAP_BIND and "map" it into a BMR. btw, with LW46/OPTION_MAP_BIND, how would an AFTR know which IPv6 source = address the B4 uses? cheers, Ole= From jiangsheng@huawei.com Wed May 15 02:21:22 2013 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 1455921F8F12 for ; Wed, 15 May 2013 02:21:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id igKGPHkOIvqy for ; Wed, 15 May 2013 02:21:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D688C21F8EB9 for ; Wed, 15 May 2013 02:21:11 -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 ASU90420; Wed, 15 May 2013 09:21:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Wed, 15 May 2013 10:20:33 +0100 Received: from NKGEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.34) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Wed, 15 May 2013 10:21:04 +0100 Received: from NKGEML512-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.215]) by nkgeml403-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.34]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Wed, 15 May 2013 17:21:01 +0800 From: Sheng Jiang To: =?utf-8?B?UsOpbWkgRGVzcHLDqXM=?= Thread-Topic: 4rd update concerning NAT64+ Thread-Index: AQHOUKv1eRq0706Xx0KHz3Hmwz6ccJkF+RWg Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 09:21:00 +0000 Message-ID: <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B923AC7E29D@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> References: <35162B35-6B97-4D71-9350-F9EAAB797C23@laposte.net> In-Reply-To: <35162B35-6B97-4D71-9350-F9EAAB797C23@laposte.net> Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.98.145] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Cc: Softwires WG Subject: Re: [Softwires] 4rd update concerning NAT64+ 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, 15 May 2013 09:21:22 -0000 SGksIFJlbWksDQoNClRoYW5rcyBmb3IgeW91ciBlbWFpbCBhbmQgY29udHJpYnV0aW9uLiBBcyBJ IGhhdmUgY29uZmlybWVkIHByaXZhdGVseSwgSSBhZ3JlZSB3aXRoIHlvdXIgY29tbWVudCBhbmQg aGF2ZSByZWNvcmRlZCB5b3VyIHN1Z2dlc3RlZCBtb2RpZmljYXRpb24gZm9yIG5leHQgdXBkYXRl LiBUaGV5IHdpbGwgYmUgYWRkcmVzc2VkIHdpdGggb3RoZXIgY29tbWVudHMgd2UgcmVjZWl2ZWQu DQoNCkJlc3QgcmVnYXJkcywNCg0KU2hlbmcNCg0KPi0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0t DQo+RnJvbTogUsOpbWkgRGVzcHLDqXMgW21haWx0bzpkZXNwcmVzLnJlbWlAbGFwb3N0ZS5uZXRd DQo+U2VudDogVHVlc2RheSwgTWF5IDE0LCAyMDEzIDEwOjA0IFBNDQo+VG86IFNoZW5nIEppYW5n DQo+Q2M6IFNvZnR3aXJlcyBXRw0KPlN1YmplY3Q6IDRyZCB1cGRhdGUgY29uY2VybmluZyBOQVQ2 NCsNCj4NCj5EZWFyIFNoZW5nLA0KPg0KPlRoaXMgaXMgdG8gY29uZmlybSBvbiB0aGUgV0cgbGlz dCB3aGF0IEkgZGlzY3Vzc2VkIHdpdGggeW91IGNvbmNlcm5pbmcgNHJkIGFuZA0KPk5BVDY0Ky4N Cj4NCj4xLg0KPkFkYXB0YXRpb24gb2YgdGhlIDRyZCBkcmFmdCB0byA2bWFuIHByZWNsdWRpbmcg SUlELXJhbmdlIHJlc2VydmF0aW9ucywNCj5hcHBlYXJzIHRvIGhhdmUgYmVlbiBpbmNvbXBsZXRl Og0KPg0KPi0gV2l0aG91dCBhIDRyZCBJSUQtcmFuZ2UgcmVzZXJ2YXRpb24sIGEgTkFUNjQrIGNh biBubyBsb25nZXIgZGlzdGluZ3Vpc2gNCj40cmQtY2FwYWJsZSBDRXMgZnJvbSBvdGhlciBob3N0 cyBvciBDRXMgb24gdGhlIHNvbGUgYmFzaXMgdGhhdCB0aGVpciBJUHY2DQo+YWRkcmVzc2VzIGNv bnRhaW4gdGhlIDRyZCB0YWcuIChBIGhvc3QgYmVoaW5kIGEgbm9uLTRyZCBDUEUgTUFZIGJlDQo+ Y29uZmlndXJlZCB3aXRoIHN1Y2ggYW4gYWRkcmVzcywgZS5nLiBieSBtYW51YWwgY29uZmlndXJh dGlvbiBpZ25vcmluZyB0aGUNCj51L2cgYml0IG1lYW5pbmcgb2YgUkZDNDI5MS4pDQo+DQo+LSBU aGUgZm9sbG93aW5nIHNlbnRlbmNlIG9mIFItMTEgaXMgdGhlcmVmb3JlIG5vIGxvbmdlciBhcHBs aWNhYmxlOg0KPiJUaGUgTkFUNjQrLCBiZWluZyBOQVQ2NCBjb25mb3JtaW5nIFtSRkM2MTQ2XSwg dXNlcyAoYikgYXMgc291cmNlDQo+YWRkcmVzc2VzIHRoYXQgZGVwZW5kIG9uIElQdjQgc291cmNl cy4gIEl0IGZpbmRzIGluIGl0cyBiaW5kaW5nIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uDQo+YmFzZSBhZGRyZXNzZXMg Y29uZm9ybWluZyB0byAoYSkuICBGaW5kaW5nIHRoZSA0cmQgdGFnIGluIHRoZW0sIGl0IHVzZXMg NHJkDQo+dHVubmVsaW5nIHJhdGhlciB0aGFuIElQdjQgdG8gSVB2NiB0cmFuc2xhdGlvbi4iDQo+ DQo+Mi4NCj5UaGUgZm9sbG93aW5nIGlzIGFuIGV4YW1wbGUgb2YgaG93IHRvIHJlc3RvcmUgZnVs bCBjb25zaXN0ZW5jeSBvZiB0aGUNCj5zcGVjaWZpY2F0aW9uOg0KPigxKSBEZWxldGUgdGhlIGFi b3ZlIHNlbnRlbmNlLg0KPigyKSBBZGQgYSBuZXcgUi14eCBzYXlpbmc6DQo+IkVhY2ggTkFUNjQr IE1VU1QgYWNjZXB0IElQdjYgcGFja2V0cyB3aG9zZSBkZXN0aW5hdGlvbiBhZGRyZXNzZXMNCj5j b250YWluIGl0cyBOQVQ2NCsgcHJlZml4LCBuZWNlc3NhcmlseSBhIC82NCwgZm9sbG93ZWQgYnkg dGhlIDRyZCB0YWcuIEl0IE1VU1QNCj5ub3RlLCBlLmcuIGluIGl0cyBCaW5kaW5nIEluZm9ybWF0 aW9uIEJhc2UsIHdoaWNoIElQdjYvSVB2NCBiaW5kaW5ncyBoYXZlIGJlZW4NCj5jcmVhdGVkIHdp dGggc3VjaCA0cmQgZGVzdGluYXRpb24gYWRkcmVzc2VzIChhcyBvcHBvc2VkIHRvIGRlc3RpbmF0 aW9uDQo+YWRkcmVzc2VzIGNvbnRhaW5pbmcgdGhlICJ1IiBvY3RldCBvZiBbUkZDNjA1Ml0pLiBJ biB0aGUgSVB2NCB0byBJUHY2IGRpcmVjdGlvbiwNCj5pdCBNVVNUIHVzZSBJUHY2IHNvdXJjZSBh ZGRyZXNzZXMgY29udGFpbmluZyB0aGUgNHJkIHRhZywgYW5kIGNvbmZvcm1pbmcgdG8NCj5vZiBG aWd1cmUgNiAoYiksIGZvciBhbGwgYmluZGluZ3Mgbm90ZWQgYXMgY3JlYXRlZCB3aXRoIDRyZCBk ZXN0aW5hdGlvbg0KPmFkZHJlc3Nlcy4NCj4NCj4NCj4zLg0KPlRoaXMgY29udHJpYnV0aW9uIGlz IGludGVuZGVkIHRvIGJlIGxpbWl0ZWQgdG8gaXRzIHRlY2huaWNhbCBzdWJzdGFuY2UsIHdpdGhv dXQNCj52aWV3IG9uIGhvdyB0byBiZXN0IGhhbmRsZSB0aGUgaXNzdWUgYXQgdGhpcyBwb2ludCAo YmVmb3JlIG9yIGFmdGVyIFdHTEM/DQo+V2l0aCB3aGljaCBwcmVjaXNlIHRleHQ/IC4uLikuDQo+ V2hhdCB3aWxsIGJlIGRlY2lkZWQgaW4gdGhlIFdHIHNob3VsZCBiZSBmaW5lIEFGQUlBQy4NCj4N Cj5UaGFuayB5b3UgYW5kIGJlc3QgcmVnYXJkcywNCj5SRA0K From tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com Wed May 15 11:11:12 2013 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 DA15121F9003 for ; Wed, 15 May 2013 11:11:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8yrjct4H4R3H for ; Wed, 15 May 2013 11:11:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qa0-x233.google.com (mail-qa0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B178221F8FE8 for ; Wed, 15 May 2013 11:11:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id ii15so1135179qab.3 for ; Wed, 15 May 2013 11:11:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=dd2RnflupO+FrXk7EjJ4omqOVNULhDQFO6TWwh3vGWA=; b=bcODZtvITgOs2GysWINynhwaRp8DTiPmGkqbVCMG1HamsfzJvhS4nFXsLslMVwrkTK IPqtCI0EYU8Kp43F9qxKExh8UfEn5wBe+a+JtZS5AQdDlFI6zuSBhskZpGdUGRtBtvkN NLZVKF07oxNRbLuyUD0PWmxed8PjDFc3ywl5Cb2pN+J/ELi6lBv0oxcxwr4P9ntn8QMw Rvj8ZyL6F1AJ6ItjlHtygn3x2/+xoToUUOwq86l/RgvpAkpyo0vPTqZ07TkTzV9NenVW Vqq2epgTZJcucl5LzoJkBiwk2US1FtkPKwqYsEoxkxkZLtM9ObJxUjJbJ8FhgEr13N5U myQw== X-Received: by 10.224.199.3 with SMTP id eq3mr29035625qab.18.1368641471073; Wed, 15 May 2013 11:11:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.65] (dsl-173-206-68-118.tor.primus.ca. [173.206.68.118]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id i5sm4239848qaf.0.2013.05.15.11.11.09 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 15 May 2013 11:11:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5193CFBB.8030900@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 14:11:07 -0400 From: Tom Taylor User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Softwires Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Softwires] Comments on draft-ietf-softwire-map-deployment-01 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, 15 May 2013 18:11:13 -0000 I have a number of trivial editorial comments, which I will share privately with the authors. However, I also have a few points for broader review. Section 4.1, Figure 3 ===================== The introductory text to this figure reads: "Figure 3 illustrate a typical case, where the home network have multiple connections to multiple providers or multiple logical connections to the same provider." It seems to me that Figure 2 illustrates this case but Figure 3 does not. Was this a mistake in labelling? Is Figure 3 even necessary given that the point is made with Figure 2? Section 4.2 first paragraph =========================== In the middle of the paragraph there is the statement: "All CEs in the MAP domain are provisioned with the same set of MAP rules by MAP DHCPv6 server [I-D.ietf-softwire-map-dhcp]." Wouldn't that be true only in mesh mode? In Hub-and-spoke mode, each CE needs just its own BMR and the address of the BR. It seems to me there should be a statement somewhere (probably in the MAP document, but also here) that the only difference between a BMR and an FMR is the point of view. Every FMR is also a BMR for the destination CE. Then the difference between hub-and-spoke and mesh is a matter of whether CEs outside of a given sub-domain get provisioned with the BMR shared by the members of that sub-domain. Section 4.2.2 last sentence =========================== The sentence reads: "But all CEs within the same MAP sub- domain would have the same Rule IPv4 prefix, Rule IPv6 prefix and PSID parameters." The PSID value will be unique to a specific CE within a given sub-domain. Using the phrase: "PSID parameters" suggests it will not. Perhaps you should replace PSID parameters by "number of Embedded Address (EA) bits". Section 4.2.3.3 last paragraph ============================== The paragraph in question reads: "There is also a suggestion that an implementation may allow the CE sends packet with destination address and port pointing to itself. The hairpinning supported by the BR for the Hub/Spokes mode delivers the packet back to the sender CE itself. Through this the probe on the connection between CE and BR is enabled." This paragraph is talking about CE and BR capabilities rather than operator planning. I think it belongs in the MAP document rather than here. I note that the topic comes back in point 4 of Section 4.3. Section 4.2.4 ============= Again the first sentence says that all the CEs in the same MAP domain get the same set of MAP rules. Please see the comments for Section 4.2. Further along in the first paragraph there is a reference to rule port parameters. These are no longer mentioned in the MAP document. However, Section 5.1 of that document has the following: "a-bits The number of offset bits. The default Offset bits (a) are 6, this excludes the system ports (0-1023)." The use of the term "default" suggests that the value of 'a' is provisionable. I recently generated results showing that, depending on the intended number of ports per user, it is possible that a lower value of 'a' would give a higher sharing ratio even though more than 1024 ports are excluded as a result. This is due to the effects of rounding. Bottom line: it may be that the value of 'a' should be made explicitly provisionable, and it may be that my results would be useful in the deployment document. I can send them along if the authors are interested. Section 4.2.5 ============= The offset is discussed here, so my remarks on the value of 'a' in the previous section also apply. Note that this section currently says the default is 4 rather than 6. The statement that PSID cannot be zero is incorrect unless 'a' is set to zero (port set consists of a single contiguous range). The correct statement is that the initial part of the port number (the a-bits) cannot be zero. There should be a reference to Appendix B of the MAP document when discussing this. Section 5.1 step B1 =================== The example uses working addresses. It should use addresses from the documentation ranges in the IANA IPv4 Special Purpose Address Registry: 192.0.2.0/24, 198.51.100.0/24, and/or 203.0.113.0/24. Section 5.1 step B2 =================== Do I misunderstand, or was the 3-bit PSID length chosen arbitrarily as part of the example? Actually, I would expect the sharing ratio (or more likely the number of ports per subscriber) to be the starting point, so you might say instead (following the first sentence): "Suppose the intended sharing ratio is 8 subscribers per address, resulting in (65536 - 1024)/8 = 8064 ports per subscriber assuming that the well-known ports are excluded. Then the PSID length to achieve this will be log2(8) = 3 bits. Bearing in mind the IPv4 16 bit prefix length for each of our two prefixes, the EA-bit length is (32 - 16) + 3 = 19 bits." Section 5.1 step B3 =================== I found this step rather mysterious until I got to step C3. Presumably the purpose is to generate a unique IPv6 prefix per MAP rule. I suggest you start by stating that as a requirement. Instead of the term "index", which to me suggests consecutive values, how about "prefix extension"? A couple of minor points: -- in the second paragraph, s/contiguous block/contiguous address block/ I have ports on the brain from recent work. Others may also be confused. -- Is there a more usual notation for a binary value x, instead of bin(x)? I'll read the rest of the document, so there may be more comments, but this is a start. Tom Taylor From shtsuchi@cisco.com Fri May 17 01:46:38 2013 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 EC4E221F93BC for ; Fri, 17 May 2013 01:46:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qxb4lkr7KHyK for ; Fri, 17 May 2013 01:46:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bgl-iport-2.cisco.com (bgl-iport-2.cisco.com [72.163.197.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 034EC21F93D8 for ; Fri, 17 May 2013 01:46:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1749; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1368780394; x=1369989994; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=MbsllPLMN1yf2AH7UZMYXldcUSnW6bgC7WXV0PCXGDQ=; b=klzDV3NRBvt8sclQ3rwQXc6qGQ8xmbwBnoU6AonvyhN2di/4gA4HmZcA UYHsi3aFVgRW5CbkVUhc3vvd8neoSyWCs9BfYDm5d20QHTO2QOZA3Rc7H EaSPuRDPkzJBAbp/PdnrWVCHfGmhfgL2ZzHjZOwz11UUy/Qgv1i39ziqe w=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqYHAMTtlVFIo8UY/2dsb2JhbABbgz9EgniJLrRygRJ0gh8BAQEEAQEBHgFMCg0EHAMBAgIDBRYKAwIJAwIBAgEVHwcCCBMGAgEBBYgDBwWPX5sfAZFogSONWikGEIIpgRYDiR2OG4EpineFIIMfLQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,690,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="31281000" Received: from vla196-nat.cisco.com (HELO bgl-core-1.cisco.com) ([72.163.197.24]) by bgl-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 May 2013 08:46:31 +0000 Received: from dhcp-10-141-40-218.cisco.com (dhcp-10-141-40-218.cisco.com [10.141.40.218]) by bgl-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4H8kRoh005031 for ; Fri, 17 May 2013 08:46:28 GMT Message-ID: <5195EE63.1090808@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 17:46:27 +0900 From: Shishio Tsuchiya User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: softwires@ietf.org References: <20130516155142.4000.66336.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20130516155142.4000.66336.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20130516155142.4000.66336.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Softwires] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-cai-softwire-6rd-mib-05.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, 17 May 2013 08:46:39 -0000 I update 6rd MIB. Add sixRdSecurityCheck object. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cai-softwire-6rd-mib-05#section-4.3 The MIB counts drop packets by 6rd receiving rule. http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5969#section-9.2 Regards, -Shishio -------- Original Message -------- Subject: I-D Action: draft-cai-softwire-6rd-mib-05.txt Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 08:51:43 -0700 From: Reply-To: To: A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Definitions of Managed Objects for 6rd Author(s) : Lei Cai Jacni Qin Shishio Tsuchiya Filename : draft-cai-softwire-6rd-mib-05.txt Pages : 10 Date : 2013-05-16 Abstract: This document defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols. In particular, it defines objects for managing 6rd devices. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cai-softwire-6rd-mib There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cai-softwire-6rd-mib-05 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-cai-softwire-6rd-mib-05 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 shtsuchi@cisco.com Fri May 17 02:00:56 2013 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 265EC21F87E0 for ; Fri, 17 May 2013 02:00:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Oi7ev0WBHuli for ; Fri, 17 May 2013 02:00:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bgl-iport-1.cisco.com (bgl-iport-1.cisco.com [72.163.197.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71F8121F91BF for ; Fri, 17 May 2013 01:59:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1729; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1368781194; x=1369990794; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=N1SnInd9LVg1rRZFxpIymZb37LjiXhQgnhBYCiufl2I=; b=QHtQzRDqGSg7PxUrDqe0T6Saaz0pBiqRo3nG0o8/Z2POetegZFQm1hcV 1gvVxmwewoM6+67NGfdLOAwr5HXG5p2wOdKH9FkChsvGHV5BqfaK9M7ki LFL5lIJOl3dc756i/aW9bwCR2FQsEXkYNCpBDwqR+WQkMHk1klYQje1EO U=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,690,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="31279809" Received: from vla196-nat.cisco.com (HELO bgl-core-4.cisco.com) ([72.163.197.24]) by bgl-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 May 2013 08:59:53 +0000 Received: from dhcp-10-141-40-218.cisco.com (dhcp-10-141-40-218.cisco.com [10.141.40.218]) by bgl-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4H8xmrd021559; Fri, 17 May 2013 08:59:49 GMT Message-ID: <5195F184.80004@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 17:59:48 +0900 From: Shishio Tsuchiya User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: softwires@ietf.org References: <20130514092823.1112.81639.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20130514092823.1112.81639.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20130514092823.1112.81639.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Softwires] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-fu-softwire-map-mib-05.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, 17 May 2013 09:00:56 -0000 I read the latest draft. I think this is good.:-) The mapTunnel Subtree which information of CE statics was removed. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: I-D Action: draft-fu-softwire-map-mib-05.txt Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 02:28:23 -0700 From: Reply-To: To: A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Definitions of Managed Objects for MAP-E Author(s) : Yu Fu Sheng Jiang Bing Liu Jiang Dong Peng Wu Filename : draft-fu-softwire-map-mib-05.txt Pages : 13 Date : 2013-05-14 Abstract: This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for using with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular, it defines managed objects for MAP encapsulation mode. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fu-softwire-map-mib There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fu-softwire-map-mib-05 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-fu-softwire-map-mib-05 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 bingxuere@gmail.com Sun May 19 22:38:42 2013 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 9EDC221F84B5 for ; Sun, 19 May 2013 22:38:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.332 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.332 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_35=0.6, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lxHbWJ3YySU7 for ; Sun, 19 May 2013 22:38:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ve0-x22d.google.com (mail-ve0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 871C321F845D for ; Sun, 19 May 2013 22:38:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ve0-f173.google.com with SMTP id cy12so5331136veb.4 for ; Sun, 19 May 2013 22:38:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=U6MkdtFe/WdrPABA7Z0v0ef4geIoUWvl2SmE9oi0xfo=; b=snAW+Fd2WosM7OkJ9ZDyYyA8+DGgg0l1c5VwkwXoXmf2G4GRxNeIgTHelfVJsRsPWP 8axujZGUX/UDAmsRGY5Uehs0K7UYyB/0NeozkSTeOjVQf0oWj5jlg9Yx8/pCZz/vw8L0 Xi9uaFTp7GsY859+/N6O4+CGpIWUj9HVY8n6GIBivdt05QDpJl8LKnNuVhqSp0tO+GaP MTiw5rdUohSzArqyoaro6+fSH5eix08jw43cu6eoV3LV0aSyZ7teeaVrYp/JWwQw1/o3 XzTKBevlEDQCb60UOohcVMlTPaUSPCEuvxJBwj9IKBqPruRN/ZLlLKTYwZt2COhWlNl8 1y0g== X-Received: by 10.58.188.82 with SMTP id fy18mr33638555vec.41.1369028313630; Sun, 19 May 2013 22:38:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.224.133 with HTTP; Sun, 19 May 2013 22:37:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5193CFBB.8030900@gmail.com> References: <5193CFBB.8030900@gmail.com> From: Qiong Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 13:37:53 +0800 Message-ID: To: Tom Taylor Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e011847fa524cf904dd1fbe7d Cc: Softwires Subject: Re: [Softwires] Comments on draft-ietf-softwire-map-deployment-01 X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 05:38:42 -0000 --089e011847fa524cf904dd1fbe7d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Dear Tom, Sorry for late reply due to the instability of my mail account recently. Thanks a lot for your detailed comments! We will modify it accordingly. My comments for section 4 is inline below. Maoke will give his comments on section 5 in a separated mail. On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 2:11 AM, Tom Taylor wrote: > I have a number of trivial editorial comments, which I will share > privately with the authors. However, I also have a few points for broader > review. > > Section 4.1, Figure 3 > ===================== > > The introductory text to this figure reads: > > "Figure 3 illustrate a typical case, > where the home network have multiple connections to multiple > providers or multiple logical connections to the same provider." > > It seems to me that Figure 2 illustrates this case but Figure 3 does not. > Was this a mistake in labelling? Is Figure 3 even necessary given that the > point is made with Figure 2? > [Qiong] It is true that Figure 2 can also illustrate network model C. We will modify it accordingly. > > Section 4.2 first paragraph > =========================== > > In the middle of the paragraph there is the statement: > > "All CEs in the MAP domain are provisioned with the same set of MAP > rules by MAP DHCPv6 server [I-D.ietf-softwire-map-dhcp]." > > Wouldn't that be true only in mesh mode? In Hub-and-spoke mode, each CE > needs just its own BMR and the address of the BR. > [Qiong] Right. My intention is for both hub&spoke and mesh, since the differences between hub&spoke and mesh is only listed in the end of this paragraph. > > It seems to me there should be a statement somewhere (probably in the MAP > document, but also here) that the only difference between a BMR and an FMR > is the point of view. Every FMR is also a BMR for the destination CE. Then > the difference between hub-and-spoke and mesh is a matter of whether CEs > outside of a given sub-domain get provisioned with the BMR shared by the > members of that sub-domain. > [Qiong] Good suggestion, will do. > > Section 4.2.2 last sentence > =========================== > > The sentence reads: > > "But all CEs within the same MAP sub- > domain would have the same Rule IPv4 prefix, Rule IPv6 prefix and > PSID parameters." > > The PSID value will be unique to a specific CE within a given sub-domain. > Using the phrase: "PSID parameters" suggests it will not. Perhaps you > should replace PSID parameters by "number of Embedded Address (EA) bits". > [Qiong] Agree. Thanks! > > Section 4.2.3.3 last paragraph > ============================== > > The paragraph in question reads: > > "There is also a suggestion that an implementation may allow the CE > sends packet with destination address and port pointing to itself. > The hairpinning supported by the BR for the Hub/Spokes mode delivers > the packet back to the sender CE itself. Through this the probe on > the connection between CE and BR is enabled." > > This paragraph is talking about CE and BR capabilities rather than > operator planning. I think it belongs in the MAP document rather than here. > I note that the topic comes back in point 4 of Section 4.3. > [Qiong] Agree. We will remove it. > > Section 4.2.4 > ============= > > Again the first sentence says that all the CEs in the same MAP domain get > the same set of MAP rules. Please see the comments for Section 4.2. > > Further along in the first paragraph there is a reference to rule port > parameters. These are no longer mentioned in the MAP document. However, > Section 5.1 of that document has the following: > > "a-bits The number of offset bits. The default Offset bits (a) are 6, > this excludes the system ports (0-1023)." > > The use of the term "default" suggests that the value of 'a' is > provisionable. I recently generated results showing that, depending on the > intended number of ports per user, it is possible that a lower value of 'a' > would give a higher sharing ratio even though more than 1024 ports are > excluded as a result. This is due to the effects of rounding. Bottom line: > it may be that the value of 'a' should be made explicitly provisionable, > and it may be that my results would be useful in the deployment document. I > can send them along if the authors are interested. > [Qiong] We will update this part according to your latest results. That will be quite helpful for deployment. > > Section 4.2.5 > ============= > > The offset is discussed here, so my remarks on the value of 'a' in the > previous section also apply. Note that this section currently says the > default is 4 rather than 6. > > The statement that PSID cannot be zero is incorrect unless 'a' is set to > zero (port set consists of a single contiguous range). The correct > statement is that the initial part of the port number (the a-bits) cannot > be zero. There should be a reference to Appendix B of the MAP document when > discussing this. > [Qiong] Thanks. We will correct it in the next version. Best wishes Qiong > > Section 5.1 step B1 > =================== > > The example uses working addresses. It should use addresses from the > documentation ranges in the IANA IPv4 Special Purpose Address Registry: > 192.0.2.0/24, 198.51.100.0/24, and/or 203.0.113.0/24. > > Section 5.1 step B2 > =================== > > Do I misunderstand, or was the 3-bit PSID length chosen arbitrarily as > part of the example? Actually, I would expect the sharing ratio (or more > likely the number of ports per subscriber) to be the starting point, so you > might say instead (following the first sentence): > > "Suppose the intended sharing ratio is 8 subscribers per address, > resulting in (65536 - 1024)/8 = 8064 ports per subscriber assuming that the > well-known ports are excluded. Then the PSID length to achieve this will be > log2(8) = 3 bits. Bearing in mind the IPv4 16 bit prefix length for each of > our two prefixes, the EA-bit length is (32 - 16) + 3 = 19 bits." > > Section 5.1 step B3 > =================== > > I found this step rather mysterious until I got to step C3. Presumably the > purpose is to generate a unique IPv6 prefix per MAP rule. I suggest you > start by stating that as a requirement. Instead of the term "index", which > to me suggests consecutive values, how about "prefix extension"? > > A couple of minor points: > -- in the second paragraph, > s/contiguous block/contiguous address block/ > I have ports on the brain from recent work. Others > may also be confused. > > -- Is there a more usual notation for a binary value x, instead of > bin(x)? > > I'll read the rest of the document, so there may be more comments, but > this is a start. > > Tom Taylor > ______________________________**_________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/softwires > -- ============================================== Qiong Sun China Telecom Beijing Research Institude Open source code: lightweight 4over6: *http://sourceforge.net/projects/laft6/* PCP-natcoord:* http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcpportsetdemo/ * =============================================== --089e011847fa524cf904dd1fbe7d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear Tom,

Sorry for late reply du= e to the instability of my mail account recently. Thanks a lot for your det= ailed comments! We will modify it accordingly.

My comments for section 4 is inline below. Maoke will give his comments on = section 5 in a=C2=A0separated mail.

On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 2:11 AM, Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com> wrote:
I have a number of trivial editorial comments, which I wil= l share privately with the authors. However, I also have a few points for b= roader review.

Section 4.1, Figure 3
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

The introductory text to this figure reads:

=C2=A0 "Figure 3 illustrate a typical case,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0where the home network have multiple connections to multiple =C2=A0 =C2=A0providers or multiple logical connections to the same provider= ."

It seems to me that Figure 2 illustrates this case but Figure 3 does not. W= as this a mistake in labelling? Is Figure 3 even necessary given that the p= oint is made with Figure 2?
[Qiong] It is true t= hat Figure 2 can also illustrate network model C. We will modify it accordi= ngly. =C2=A0=C2=A0

Section 4.2 first paragraph
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D

In the middle of the paragraph there is the statement:

"All CEs in the MAP domain are provisioned with the same set of MAP =C2=A0 =C2=A0rules by MAP DHCPv6 server [I-D.ietf-softwire-map-dhcp]."=

Wouldn't that be true only in mesh mode? In Hub-and-spoke mode, each CE= needs just its own BMR and the address of the BR.
[Qiong] Right. My intention is for both hub&spoke and mesh, since th= e differences between hub&spoke and mesh is only listed in the end of t= his=C2=A0paragraph.=C2=A0

It seems to me there should be a statement somewhere (probably in the MAP d= ocument, but also here) that the only difference between a BMR and an FMR i= s the point of view. Every FMR is also a BMR for the destination CE. Then t= he difference between hub-and-spoke and mesh is a matter of whether CEs out= side of a given sub-domain get provisioned with the BMR shared by the membe= rs of that sub-domain.
[Qiong] Good suggestion, will do.=C2=A0

Section 4.2.2 last sentence
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D

The sentence reads:

"But all CEs within the same MAP sub-
=C2=A0 =C2=A0domain would have the same Rule IPv4 prefix, Rule IPv6 prefix = and
=C2=A0 =C2=A0PSID parameters."

The PSID value will be unique to a specific CE within a given sub-domain. U= sing the phrase: "PSID parameters" suggests it will not. Perhaps = you should replace PSID parameters by "number of Embedded Address (EA)= bits".
[Qiong] Agree. Thanks! =C2=A0

Section 4.2.3.3 last paragraph
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

The paragraph in question reads:

=C2=A0 "There is also a suggestion that an implementation may allow th= e CE
=C2=A0 =C2=A0sends packet with destination address and port pointing to its= elf.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0The hairpinning supported by the BR for the Hub/Spokes mode de= livers
=C2=A0 =C2=A0the packet back to the sender CE itself. =C2=A0Through this th= e probe on
=C2=A0 =C2=A0the connection between CE and BR is enabled."

This paragraph is talking about CE and BR capabilities rather than operator= planning. I think it belongs in the MAP document rather than here. I note = that the topic comes back in point 4 of Section 4.3.
[Qiong] Agree. We will remove it.

Section 4.2.4
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Again the first sentence says that all the CEs in the same MAP domain get t= he same set of MAP rules. Please see the comments for Section 4.2.

Further along in the first paragraph there is a reference to rule port para= meters. These are no longer mentioned in the MAP document. However, Section= 5.1 of that document has the following:

"a-bits The number of offset bits. =C2=A0The default Offset bits (a) a= re 6,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 this excludes the system ports (0-1023)."

The use of the term "default" suggests that the value of 'a&#= 39; is provisionable. I recently generated results showing that, depending = on the intended number of ports per user, it is possible that a lower value= of 'a' would give a higher sharing ratio even though more than 102= 4 ports are excluded as a result. This is due to the effects of rounding. B= ottom line: it may be that the value of 'a' should be made explicit= ly provisionable, and it may be that my results would be useful in the depl= oyment document. I can send them along if the authors are interested.
[Qiong] We will update this part according to your = latest results. That will be quite helpful for deployment. =C2=A0

Section 4.2.5
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

The offset is discussed here, so my remarks on the value of 'a' in = the previous section also apply. Note that this section currently says the = default is 4 rather than 6.

The statement that PSID cannot be zero is incorrect unless 'a' is s= et to zero (port set consists of a single contiguous range). The correct st= atement is that the initial part of the port number (the a-bits) cannot be = zero. There should be a reference to Appendix B of the MAP document when di= scussing this.
[Qiong] Thanks. We will correct it in the next vers= ion.

Best wishes
Qiong=
=C2=A0

Section 5.1 step B1
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

The example uses working addresses. It should use addresses from the docume= ntation ranges in the IANA IPv4 Special Purpose Address Registry: 192.0.2.0/24, 198.51.100.0/24, and/or 203.0.113.0/24.

Section 5.1 step B2
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Do I misunderstand, or was the 3-bit PSID length chosen arbitrarily as part= of the example? Actually, I would expect the sharing ratio (or more likely= the number of ports per subscriber) to be the starting point, so you might= say instead (following the first sentence):

"Suppose the intended sharing ratio is 8 subscribers per address, resu= lting in (65536 - 1024)/8 =3D 8064 ports per subscriber assuming that the w= ell-known ports are excluded. Then the PSID length to achieve this will be = log2(8) =3D 3 bits. Bearing in mind the IPv4 16 bit prefix length for each = of our two prefixes, the EA-bit length is (32 - 16) + 3 =3D 19 bits."<= br>
Section 5.1 step B3
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

I found this step rather mysterious until I got to step C3. Presumably the = purpose is to generate a unique IPv6 prefix per MAP rule. I suggest you sta= rt by stating that as a requirement. Instead of the term "index",= which to me suggests consecutive values, how about "prefix extension&= quot;?

A couple of minor points:
=C2=A0 -- in the second paragraph,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0s/contiguous block/contiguous address block/
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0I have ports on the brain from recent work. Others
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0may also be confused.

=C2=A0 -- Is there a more usual notation for a binary value x, instead of =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0bin(x)?

I'll read the rest of the document, so there may be more comments, but = this is a start.

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



-- =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Qiong= Sun
China Telecom Beijing Research Institude


Open source cod= e:
lightweight 4over6: http://sourceforge.net/projects/laft6/
PCP-natcoord: http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcpportsetdemo/
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
--089e011847fa524cf904dd1fbe7d-- From tom.taylor.stds@gmail.com Mon May 20 11:59:38 2013 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 8BA2E21F8E84 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 11:59:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4adwQEwbZ08C for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 11:59:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-x230.google.com (mail-ie0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFEA121F8DD5 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 11:59:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ie0-f176.google.com with SMTP id at1so14548720iec.21 for ; Mon, 20 May 2013 11:59:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=QOlfu+SAjgixSbhRHyyGH9AHjEadBCAy0AGkUWBYuTI=; b=FO+W4Vj7Q9AAzXgx/pRJUl1MEo09ji+hC2qm6s6lI3dWK9joOKT129wg8psX9T96lz aMNSm56c5XmZ5DDNlKgWZBhxDyTTL2VoguQ4sOO7cPGt/HhqerVzEvKvpFDHuBO9+TSm iUK6t2RKvmJepEm42fRwwEe8dxpZamfv/iplSUOR7ux16we4nWSMulX88aLaTuyDA7VN DnapoNs0llz/+1+K0s8829JDEOff6t81/WfZygcTw+PfrZ/MxKQqdm6ACqjqCcVGRbfD DuKHbDihrhileY0N1Bvrdzlqsj/8sf2HGvRKWZeLjix5kJBCM/qhhBxWFX1CBcaXpcXw YfAg== X-Received: by 10.42.28.71 with SMTP id m7mr22141037icc.19.1369076377558; Mon, 20 May 2013 11:59:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.65] (dsl-173-206-2-36.tor.primus.ca. [173.206.2.36]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id j3sm4890402igv.4.2013.05.20.11.59.36 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 20 May 2013 11:59:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <519A7297.1080901@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 14:59:35 -0400 From: Tom Taylor User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Qiong References: <5193CFBB.8030900@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Softwires Subject: [Softwires] Effect of offset 'a' on sharing ratio (was Re: Comments on draft-ietf-softwire-map-deployment-01) X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 18:59:38 -0000 The results on the relationship of offset 'a' to sharing ratio are shown in the latest version of draft-tsou-softwire-port-set-algorithms-analysis beginning with the notes to Table 3 in Section 3.2.4 and continuing in Section 4. (BTW, the title of Table 3 is wrong due to a cut-and-paste error.) Tom On 20/05/2013 1:37 AM, Qiong wrote: ... >> >> Further along in the first paragraph there is a reference to rule port >> parameters. These are no longer mentioned in the MAP document. However, >> Section 5.1 of that document has the following: >> >> "a-bits The number of offset bits. The default Offset bits (a) are 6, >> this excludes the system ports (0-1023)." >> >> The use of the term "default" suggests that the value of 'a' is >> provisionable. I recently generated results showing that, depending on the >> intended number of ports per user, it is possible that a lower value of 'a' >> would give a higher sharing ratio even though more than 1024 ports are >> excluded as a result. This is due to the effects of rounding. Bottom line: >> it may be that the value of 'a' should be made explicitly provisionable, >> and it may be that my results would be useful in the deployment document. I >> can send them along if the authors are interested. >> > [Qiong] We will update this part according to your latest results. That > will be quite helpful for deployment. > >> >> Section 4.2.5 >> ============= >> >> The offset is discussed here, so my remarks on the value of 'a' in the >> previous section also apply. Note that this section currently says the >> default is 4 rather than 6. >> ... From fibrib@gmail.com Tue May 21 03:17:34 2013 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 36D6021F9698 for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 03:17:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.597 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z+XLlfMk4DQq for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 03:17:30 -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 2C9D921F9697 for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 03:17:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id n12so545746oag.3 for ; Tue, 21 May 2013 03:17:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=CIVfwa8bT4OJCUD7W6/sLOT3ZCBdSt1dHmWWR9F2Pkk=; b=vLacDnLSNgwsDXUGtmB4BC0AkeGQhCNzZSGHVrMUDDTUDrnlCESvpKP0nGrtL4PqYr L/gSL4FkJc09Do9GnMzpdCIcpov1B8F8AZV5mc0UenUEA6VSp0e5t9eUM9aPSeyAjYgA JE2bHWyKjfhQAhzvCW/DPbMZWJ6Cm7njfgV0mVFjsD0ajKB0A0BuTfi81O0inxKp2+ju nD6cvYpFSN78JNKFCcvvmjFuxdIWsR1H+4iTecJqWT9lUAndVe9d6Ml+9Jq+xpJTfKtF 5FC3ZgveMw/lXoOgHj+5kWK6LGaR7NDHJV53ZfV5zB1MGnYXeLX63ZaMeSXDSet60oCa SWvA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.144.232 with SMTP id sp8mr928236obb.80.1369131449730; Tue, 21 May 2013 03:17:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.76.18.237 with HTTP; Tue, 21 May 2013 03:17:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5193CFBB.8030900@gmail.com> References: <5193CFBB.8030900@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 19:17:29 +0900 Message-ID: From: Maoke To: Tom Taylor Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0153693cb64eb504dd37c155 Cc: Softwires Subject: Re: [Softwires] Comments on draft-ietf-softwire-map-deployment-01 X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 10:17:34 -0000 --089e0153693cb64eb504dd37c155 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 dear Tom, thanks a lot for the comments. sorry for the delay though. now maoke is replying in line regarding the section 5. 2013/5/16 Tom Taylor > I have a number of trivial editorial comments, which I will share > privately with the authors. However, I also have a few points for broader > review. > ... > > Section 5.1 step B1 > =================== > > The example uses working addresses. It should use addresses from the > documentation ranges in the IANA IPv4 Special Purpose Address Registry: > 192.0.2.0/24, 198.51.100.0/24, and/or 203.0.113.0/24. > yes. only a little difficult that originally we took /16 examples but there is no /16 documentary ranges. :P i am handling with the text by using the /24 above for the example. however, as the IPv4 space is now limited, the supported number of CEs with reasonable sharing ratio must be smaller than the original 2^20. i would like to change it to 2^10. > > Section 5.1 step B2 > =================== > > Do I misunderstand, or was the 3-bit PSID length chosen arbitrarily as > part of the example? Actually, I would expect the sharing ratio (or more > likely the number of ports per subscriber) to be the starting point, so you > might say instead (following the first sentence): > > "Suppose the intended sharing ratio is 8 subscribers per address, > resulting in (65536 - 1024)/8 = 8064 ports per subscriber assuming that the > well-known ports are excluded. Then the PSID length to achieve this will be > log2(8) = 3 bits. Bearing in mind the IPv4 16 bit prefix length for each of > our two prefixes, the EA-bit length is (32 - 16) + 3 = 19 bits." > thanks a lot for suggesting the text. it is true that we firstly have the sharing ratio as the part of service specification, then we may have the length of PSID. however, the logic is not only about the sharing ratio. for example, we have 2^10 CEs, and now we have the service specification that share per IPv4 address among each 8 CEs, then at least 2^7 IPv4 addresses are needed. if our held space is less than /25, we cannot play the game unless we relax the sharing ratio to 16 CEs per address resulting in less usable ports for each subscriber (CE). i'd like to take your suggest text as the base and refine the paragraph taking this understanding into account. > > Section 5.1 step B3 > =================== > > I found this step rather mysterious until I got to step C3. Presumably the > purpose is to generate a unique IPv6 prefix per MAP rule. I suggest you > start by stating that as a requirement. Instead of the term "index", which > to me suggests consecutive values, how about "prefix extension"? > yes. there needs a statement on the requirement too. prefix extension is an accurate term. thanks a lot for suggesting that. > > A couple of minor points: > -- in the second paragraph, > s/contiguous block/contiguous address block/ > I have ports on the brain from recent work. Others > may also be confused. > thanks. > > -- Is there a more usual notation for a binary value x, instead of > bin(x)? > i have the same question but no answer. :P anyone has any suggestion? > > I'll read the rest of the document, so there may be more comments, but > this is a start. thanks in advance. best regards, maoke > > > Tom Taylor > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > --089e0153693cb64eb504dd37c155 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
dear Tom,=A0

thanks a lo= t for the comments. sorry for the delay though.=A0
now maoke is r= eplying in line regarding the section 5.=A0


2013/5/16 Tom Taylor <tom.taylor.stds@g= mail.com>
I have a number of trivial editorial comments, which I will share privately= with the authors. However, I also have a few points for broader review. ...
=A0
Section 5.1 step B1
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

The example uses working addresses. It should use addresses from the docume= ntation ranges in the IANA IPv4 Special Purpose Address Registry: 192.0.2.0/24, 198.51.100.0/24, and/or 203.0.113.0/24.

yes. only a little difficult that original= ly we took /16 examples but there is no /16 documentary ranges. :P i am han= dling with the text by using the /24 above for the example. however, as the= IPv4 space is now limited, the supported number of CEs with reasonable sha= ring ratio must be smaller than the original 2^20. i would like to change i= t to 2^10.=A0
=A0

Section 5.1 step B2
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Do I misunderstand, or was the 3-bit PSID length chosen arbitrarily as part= of the example? Actually, I would expect the sharing ratio (or more likely= the number of ports per subscriber) to be the starting point, so you might= say instead (following the first sentence):

"Suppose the intended sharing ratio is 8 subscribers per address, resu= lting in (65536 - 1024)/8 =3D 8064 ports per subscriber assuming that the w= ell-known ports are excluded. Then the PSID length to achieve this will be = log2(8) =3D 3 bits. Bearing in mind the IPv4 16 bit prefix length for each = of our two prefixes, the EA-bit length is (32 - 16) + 3 =3D 19 bits."<= br>

thanks a lot for suggesting the text. it i= s true that we firstly have the sharing ratio as the part of service specif= ication, then we may have the length of PSID. however, the logic is not onl= y about the sharing ratio. for example, we have 2^10 CEs, and now we have t= he service specification that share per IPv4 address among each 8 CEs, then= at least 2^7 IPv4 addresses are needed. if our held space is less than /25= , we cannot play the game unless we relax the sharing ratio to 16 CEs per a= ddress resulting in less usable ports for each subscriber (CE). i'd lik= e to take your suggest text as the base and refine the paragraph taking thi= s understanding into account.=A0
=A0

Section 5.1 step B3
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

I found this step rather mysterious until I got to step C3. Presumably the = purpose is to generate a unique IPv6 prefix per MAP rule. I suggest you sta= rt by stating that as a requirement. Instead of the term "index",= which to me suggests consecutive values, how about "prefix extension&= quot;?

yes. there needs a statement on the requir= ement too. prefix extension is an accurate term. thanks a lot for suggestin= g that.=A0
=A0

A couple of minor points:
=A0 -- in the second paragraph,
=A0 =A0 =A0s/contiguous block/contiguous address block/
=A0 =A0 =A0I have ports on the brain from recent work. Others
=A0 =A0 =A0may also be confused.

thanks= .=A0
=A0

=A0 -- Is there a more usual notation for a binary value x, instead of
=A0 =A0 =A0bin(x)?

i have the same ques= tion but no answer. :P anyone has any suggestion?
=A0

I'll read the rest of the document, so there may be more comments, but = this is a start.

thanks in advance.=A0

best regards,
maoke
=A0


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

--089e0153693cb64eb504dd37c155-- From suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com Thu May 23 21:10:09 2013 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 BFBF821F854E for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 21:10:08 -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=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZA47H2ql49IN for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 21:10:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (usevmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D286621F8529 for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 21:10:01 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c618062d-b7fb56d0000042e1-ed-519ee8182f21 Received: from EUSAAHC002.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.78]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id C2.19.17121.818EE915; Fri, 24 May 2013 06:10:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se (147.117.20.178) by EUSAAHC002.ericsson.se (147.117.188.78) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.328.9; Fri, 24 May 2013 00:10:00 -0400 Received: from [164.48.125.12] (147.117.20.214) by smtps-am.internal.ericsson.com (147.117.20.178) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.279.1; Fri, 24 May 2013 00:09:59 -0400 Message-ID: <519EE777.2040407@ericsson.com> Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 00:07:19 -0400 From: Suresh Krishnan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130404 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Softwires WG X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmphluLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZXLrHT1fyxbxAg5+XeSx+bEm2OLxsK5MD k8eSJT+ZPI5/fsscwBTFZZOSmpNZllqkb5fAldG89D5TwRzmiq/XGlgaGI8zdTFyckgImEhc Xf2CEcIWk7hwbz1bFyMXh5DAUUaJfXv6mSCcPYwSjSuvsYNUCQlsZZS4ebkExOYV0JZYd3UT UBEHB4uAqsTVK7YgYTagoRt2fgZbICoQJvFh2RImiHJBiZMzn7CA2CJA5U92PmADsZkF1CRm Pv8JViMs4CaxZtIGZoiDJCW2vGhnh6jRk5hytYURwpaX2P52DjPEOZoSW9d8Z53AKDgLyYpZ SFpmIWlZwMi8ipGjtDi1LDfdyGATIzAkj0mw6e5g3PPS8hCjNAeLkjhvq/bUQCGB9MSS1OzU 1ILUovii0pzU4kOMTBycUg2MCTkC7O81J7w6vLqXkfNtc2nhzXu7r+1cvjPUKiS4Sm8Puzpn k2I7X0SaxMsb23eXly++5n24gdFlVa2kaZvN5pL38Wv/vlHkX19Xt/eBBk/HgSm5SyzuRYt9 PnX91expWkZXfky68YFlwZK+w+fyxbrfiJprZLX4+8WnHvZYfGti4rddMY0nlFiKMxINtZiL ihMBRTZogxcCAAA= Cc: Yong Cui Subject: [Softwires] Call for adoption of draft-fu-softwire-map-mib-05 as wg draft 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, 24 May 2013 04:10:09 -0000 Hi all, This call is being initiated to determine whether there is WG consensus towards adoption of draft-fu-softwire-map-mib-05 as a softwire WG draft. Please state whether or not you're in favor of the adoption by replying to this email. If you are not in favor, please also state your objections in your response. The call will complete at midnight PDT on 2013-06-02. Regards Suresh & Yong From suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com Thu May 23 21:12:29 2013 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 0F69421F96E4 for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 21:12:29 -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=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iL3bo+fpTXsD for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 21:12:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (usevmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 692D321F968F for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 21:12:22 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c618062d-b7fb56d0000042e1-17-519ee8a53f67 Received: from EUSAAHC001.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.75]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 7C.19.17121.5A8EE915; Fri, 24 May 2013 06:12:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from eusaamw0712.eamcs.ericsson.se (147.117.20.181) by EUSAAHC001.ericsson.se (147.117.188.75) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.328.9; Fri, 24 May 2013 00:12:21 -0400 Received: from [164.48.125.12] (147.117.20.214) by smtps-am.internal.ericsson.com (147.117.20.181) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.279.1; Fri, 24 May 2013 00:12:20 -0400 Message-ID: <519EE806.9080506@ericsson.com> Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 00:09:42 -0400 From: Suresh Krishnan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130404 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Softwires WG X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpmluLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZXLrHW3fpi3mBBnfnmVv82JJscXjZViYH Jo8lS34yeRz//JY5gCmKyyYlNSezLLVI3y6BK6P5q2jBIuaKk6vnszYwnmXqYuTkkBAwkZi3 tpkVwhaTuHBvPVsXIxeHkMBRRon7F++zgySEBPYwSqzscoawtzJKPD9pBmLzCmhLzPk5G6yG RUBVYvW9DWCD2ICGbtj5GWyBqECYxIdlS5gg6gUlTs58wgJiiwDVP9n5gA3EZhZQk5j5/CdY jbCAr8SxU/tZIA6SlNjyop0dokZPYsrVFkYIW15i+9s5zBD3aEpsXfOddQKj4CwkK2YhaZmF pGUBI/MqRo7S4tSy3HQjg02MwIA8JsGmu4Nxz0vLQ4zSHCxK4ryt2lMDhQTSE0tSs1NTC1KL 4otKc1KLDzEycXBKNTCu1HOOmlBnYeLC2jKXp0TC2vWk+rf2MsPrC/ZwdJl/22e6oLcttyBy 2X3tFa/5fngIzRK5+6Twfo6aaeOEMJcL+0xSDI4v5Cja/qol+P6dn++4I2UXi6p8q9zzUGtL xRSGBwFcLAt9e5Kaft9Nd9yqnbrmAIPvsdva7097+EhFnrWzu/Bp/xMlluKMREMt5qLiRACi uxaoFgIAAA== Cc: Yong Cui Subject: [Softwires] Call for adoption of draft-jiang-softwire-map-radius-04 as wg draft 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, 24 May 2013 04:12:29 -0000 Hi all, This call is being initiated to determine whether there is WG consensus towards adoption of draft-jiang-softwire-map-radius-04 as a softwire WG draft. Please state whether or not you're in favor of the adoption by replying to this email. If you are not in favor, please also state your objections in your response. The call will complete at midnight PDT on 2013-06-02. Regards Suresh & Yong From suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com Thu May 23 21:21:27 2013 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 DF90E21F970F for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 21:21:27 -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=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w2GDgbhGVqhZ for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 21:21:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usevmg21.ericsson.net (usevmg21.ericsson.net [198.24.6.65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92DDE21F966B for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 21:21:20 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c6180641-b7f7b6d000001a44-8c-519eeabe5c61 Received: from EUSAAHC003.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.81]) by usevmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id FE.38.06724.EBAEE915; Fri, 24 May 2013 06:21:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se (147.117.20.178) by EUSAAHC003.ericsson.se (147.117.188.81) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.328.9; Fri, 24 May 2013 00:21:18 -0400 Received: from [164.48.125.12] (147.117.20.214) by smtps-am.internal.ericsson.com (147.117.20.178) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.279.1; Fri, 24 May 2013 00:21:17 -0400 Message-ID: <519EEA1E.5090006@ericsson.com> Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 00:18:38 -0400 From: Suresh Krishnan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130404 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Softwires WG X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFuplluLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZXLonUHf/q3mBBvu3cFv82JJscXjZViaL rd2xDsweS5b8ZPJ4fWA+q8fxz2+ZA5ijuGxSUnMyy1KL9O0SuDL2nZzDWNDGVvFn2wX2BsZG 1i5GDg4JAROJjq3yXYycQKaYxIV769m6GLk4hASOMko83/eEBcLZwyjReXoSM4SzlVFi6r05 YN28AtoSk49qgXSzCKhKbH6/jxnEZgMaumHnZyYQW1QgTOLDsiVgNq+AoMTJmSBDOTlEgOqf 7HzABmIzC3hKrNjwjRHEFhZwkejZP5sR4iJJiS0v2tkhavQkplxtYYSw5SW2v50DtktIQFNi 65rvrBMYBWchWTELScssJC0LGJlXMXKUFqeW5aYbGW5iBAbpMQk2xx2MCz5ZHmKU5mBREuft 1p4aKCSQnliSmp2aWpBaFF9UmpNafIiRiYNTqoFx741LH6Zd2i6tLWPE90w20NBgzst5i85O nJlTUhO2wOXCzh6d/x8yQrpeOK69yJBzWaZu8p10G262+tu6sWdefT7mILuq9fHBH/fP/DCR n/ngTsPv13eEDt+UarD7zJLWV7TSNjbtFIeOustp7QUmyXqXl2jF7vqRHdXPeoa9MGTfGaVd soo/lFiKMxINtZiLihMBJoBmCSACAAA= Cc: Yong Cui Subject: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-03 X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 04:21:28 -0000 Hi all, This message starts a two week softwire working group last call on advancing the draft defining the Softwire Mesh MIB as a Standards Track RFC. The authors believe that this version has addressed all the issues raised until now on the document. The latest version of the draft is available at http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-03.txt http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-03 Substantive comments and statements of support/opposition for advancing this document should be directed to the mailing list. Editorial suggestions can be sent directly to the authors. The chairs will send in their comments as well during the last call period. This last call will conclude on June 2, 2013. Regards, Suresh & Yong From suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com Thu May 23 21:24:04 2013 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 4F26321F966B for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 21:24:04 -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=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ht844Qum1hIh for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 21:23:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (usevmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3808221F905F for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 21:23:58 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c618062d-b7fb56d0000042e1-dc-519eeb5d0058 Received: from EUSAAHC002.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.78]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 47.49.17121.D5BEE915; Fri, 24 May 2013 06:23:57 +0200 (CEST) Received: from eusaamw0711.eamcs.ericsson.se (147.117.20.178) by EUSAAHC002.ericsson.se (147.117.188.78) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.328.9; Fri, 24 May 2013 00:23:56 -0400 Received: from [164.48.125.12] (147.117.20.214) by smtps-am.internal.ericsson.com (147.117.20.178) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.279.1; Fri, 24 May 2013 00:23:55 -0400 Message-ID: <519EEABD.1090107@ericsson.com> Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 00:21:17 -0400 From: Suresh Krishnan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130404 Thunderbird/17.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Softwires WG X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFuplluLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZXLrHTzf29bxAgx2H9Cx+bEm2OLxsK5PF 1u5YB2aPJUt+Mnm8PjCf1eP457fMAcxRXDYpqTmZZalF+nYJXBmv9zezFLSwVexa+IqlgbGB tYuRk0NCwETi283l7BC2mMSFe+vZuhi5OIQEjjJKzNy9igUkISSwh1Fi8/YYiMRWRolPX98y dTFycPAKaEv8/mwLUsMioCpxYvp9sKFsQEM37PzMBGKLCoRJfFi2BMzmFRCUODnzCdhMEaD6 JzsfsIHYzAKeEis2fGMEsYUF3CTerFwCdZCkxJYX7ewQNXoSU662MELY8hLb385hhrhNU2Lr mu+sExgFZyFZMQtJyywkLQsYmVcxcpQWp5blphsZbGIEBukxCTbdHYx7XloeYpTmYFES523V nhooJJCeWJKanZpakFoUX1Sak1p8iJGJg1OqgZFx+wvNTs3ml3b9CYd69nQ7Pk+dGj3zlvWZ TQFll5fY1PWsfZ/4fOm626mVfrE9P6YfL83Odw/fqz//O8+vrElfXSRPbDrx4Ir7xuzNL88f mqa6/ai4qVLeiZM9fiwmv2QXGP0PqXp4+Hp9jwnntu2B8ou2an+6uHi2zL89eqK9anpKUVzB Sy4qsRRnJBpqMRcVJwIAH9zFbyACAAA= Cc: Yong Cui Subject: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-02 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, 24 May 2013 04:24:04 -0000 Hi all, This message starts a two week softwire working group last call on advancing the draft defining the DS-Lite MIB as a Standards Track RFC. The authors believe that this version has addressed all the issues raised until now on the document. The latest version of the draft is available at http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-02.txt http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-02 Substantive comments and statements of support/opposition for advancing this document should be directed to the mailing list. Editorial suggestions can be sent directly to the authors. The chairs will send in their comments as well during the last call period. This last call will conclude on June 2, 2013. Regards, Suresh & Yong From shtsuchi@cisco.com Thu May 23 21:36:09 2013 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 91AA821F8F69 for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 21:36:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id McUmKNmAURH4 for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 21:36:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bgl-iport-2.cisco.com (bgl-iport-2.cisco.com [72.163.197.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83E8421F8F00 for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 21:36:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=661; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1369370164; x=1370579764; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=PMli4lqxBwhLRiEX1Kxo7uOD+XKm5w0V16XJ0bD8f74=; b=mBc+GaDdd6TZX6S+hoUIyn+YRyck9192BHvtMnpJt9Q4CDeFTK4WMkPO LWEtyJSkgUZxrSiB7W2bvk3G8UqUZiBsuwa2r6g1otg1iiAUSNxswqdXJ DbsEJbJX6JZAJ9PZczbRErcbyKROQSGqGa/ONDwNd2CgcEACrppwrgzvd A=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,732,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="31605192" Received: from vla196-nat.cisco.com (HELO bgl-core-3.cisco.com) ([72.163.197.24]) by bgl-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 May 2013 04:35:54 +0000 Received: from dhcp-10-141-40-56.cisco.com (dhcp-10-141-40-56.cisco.com [10.141.40.56]) by bgl-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4O4ZoU2010664; Fri, 24 May 2013 04:35:50 GMT Message-ID: <519EEE26.5010100@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 13:35:50 +0900 From: Shishio Tsuchiya User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: softwires@ietf.org References: <519EE777.2040407@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <519EE777.2040407@ericsson.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Softwires] Call for adoption of draft-fu-softwire-map-mib-05 as wg draft 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, 24 May 2013 04:36:09 -0000 Support as wg draft. (2013/05/24 13:07), Suresh Krishnan wrote: > Hi all, > This call is being initiated to determine whether there is WG > consensus towards adoption of draft-fu-softwire-map-mib-05 as a softwire > WG draft. Please state whether or not you're in favor of the adoption by > replying to this email. If you are not in favor, please also state your > objections in your response. The call will complete at midnight PDT on > 2013-06-02. > > Regards > Suresh & Yong > > > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > From leo.liubing@huawei.com Fri May 24 00:54:01 2013 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 C049B21F9436 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 00:54:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.388 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.388 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.211, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id c+sVTTG8S5Ek for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 00:53:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D10B21F942D for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 00:53:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id ARR59932; Fri, 24 May 2013 07:53:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Fri, 24 May 2013 08:53:31 +0100 Received: from NKGEML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.35) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Fri, 24 May 2013 08:53:46 +0100 Received: from NKGEML506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.240]) by nkgeml404-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.35]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Fri, 24 May 2013 15:53:40 +0800 From: "Liubing (Leo)" To: Suresh Krishnan , Softwires WG Thread-Topic: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-03 Thread-Index: AQHOWDYv0loPNA0WiE2OCvZT6NVbs5kT5j5w Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 07:53:40 +0000 Message-ID: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D729113@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> References: <519EEA1E.5090006@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <519EEA1E.5090006@ericsson.com> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.98.161] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Cc: Yong Cui , "draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-03 X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 07:54:01 -0000 Support. I think the draft is mature enough to move forward. Only a minor question: I found most of the objects' MAX-ACCESS were defined as "not-accessible", e= xcept for the swmEncapsIIPDstType, swmEncapsIIPDst and swmBGPNeighborTunnel= Type which were "read-only". Is there any special consideration that the access rights are so limited? W= ould it be harmful to make the other objects as "read-only"? B.R. Bing > -----Original Message----- > From: softwires-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Suresh Krishnan > Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 12:19 PM > To: Softwires WG > Cc: Yong Cui > Subject: [Softwires] Working group last call for > draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-03 >=20 > Hi all, > This message starts a two week softwire working group last call on > advancing the draft defining the Softwire Mesh MIB as a Standards Track > RFC. The authors believe that this version has addressed all the issues > raised until now on the document. The latest version of the draft is > available at >=20 > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-03.txt > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-03 >=20 > Substantive comments and statements of support/opposition for advancing > this document should be directed to the mailing list. Editorial > suggestions can be sent directly to the authors. The chairs will send in > their comments as well during the last call period. This last call will > conclude on June 2, 2013. >=20 > Regards, > Suresh & Yong >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires From christian.jacquenet@orange.com Fri May 24 01:01:28 2013 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 4BD0E21F96A2 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 01:01:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.948 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.948 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ffwDFb6esYGo for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 01:01:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0F6521F9644 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 01:01:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.4]) by omfedm13.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 6C6E0325B31; Fri, 24 May 2013 10:01:22 +0200 (CEST) Received: from PUEXCH71.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.33]) by omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id AFECA238059; Fri, 24 May 2013 10:01:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from PUEXCB1C.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.9]) by PUEXCH71.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.33]) with mapi; Fri, 24 May 2013 10:01:18 +0200 From: To: Suresh Krishnan , Softwires WG Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 10:01:18 +0200 Thread-Topic: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-02 Thread-Index: Ac5YNokTN5edaKbCT9mPkrmbdyal6AAHj6Vw Message-ID: <8165_1369382478_519F1E4E_8165_3283_1_983A1D8DA0DA5F4EB747BF34CBEE5CD15C3BCBA27B@PUEXCB1C.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> References: <519EEABD.1090107@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <519EEABD.1090107@ericsson.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: 2013.5.24.71215 Cc: Yong Cui Subject: Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-02 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, 24 May 2013 08:01:28 -0000 WG, I support the DS-Lite MIB draft to move forward. Cheers, Christian. -----Message d'origine----- De=A0: softwires-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] De la= part de Suresh Krishnan Envoy=E9=A0: vendredi 24 mai 2013 06:21 =C0=A0: Softwires WG Cc=A0: Yong Cui Objet=A0: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-dslit= e-mib-02 Hi all, This message starts a two week softwire working group last call on advanc= ing the draft defining the DS-Lite MIB as a Standards Track RFC. The authors believe that this version has addressed all the issues raised u= ntil now on the document. The latest version of the draft is available at http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-02.txt http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-02 Substantive comments and statements of support/opposition for advancing thi= s document should be directed to the mailing list. Editorial suggestions ca= n be sent directly to the authors. The chairs will send in their comments a= s well during the last call period. This last call will conclude on June 2,= 2013. Regards, Suresh & Yong _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires ___________________________________________________________________________= ______________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confiden= tielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu= ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages el= ectroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete al= tere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged inf= ormation that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and dele= te this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for message= s that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. From leo.liubing@huawei.com Fri May 24 01:08:58 2013 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 4F22E21F96A2 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 01:08:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.404 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.404 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.195, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4hsp2E7r1E5l for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 01:08:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D59C21F969E for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 01:08:53 -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 ARR61715; Fri, 24 May 2013 08:08:52 +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 14.1.323.7; Fri, 24 May 2013 09:08:30 +0100 Received: from nkgeml407-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.38) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Fri, 24 May 2013 09:08:44 +0100 Received: from NKGEML506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.240]) by nkgeml407-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.38]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Fri, 24 May 2013 16:08:37 +0800 From: "Liubing (Leo)" To: Suresh Krishnan , Softwires WG Thread-Topic: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-02 Thread-Index: AQHOWFVSKEbzGE7cpkC4Od1t2KtE0pkT+vMQ Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 08:08:36 +0000 Message-ID: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D729132@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> References: <519EEABD.1090107@ericsson.com> <8165_1369382478_519F1E4E_8165_3283_1_983A1D8DA0DA5F4EB747BF34CBEE5CD15C3BCBA27B@PUEXCB1C.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> In-Reply-To: <8165_1369382478_519F1E4E_8165_3283_1_983A1D8DA0DA5F4EB747BF34CBEE5CD15C3BCBA27B@PUEXCB1C.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.98.161] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Cc: Yong Cui Subject: Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-02 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, 24 May 2013 08:08:58 -0000 +1 also support. B.R. Bing > -----Original Message----- > From: softwires-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of christian.jacquenet@orange.com > Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 4:01 PM > To: Suresh Krishnan; Softwires WG > Cc: Yong Cui > Subject: Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for > draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-02 >=20 > WG, >=20 > I support the DS-Lite MIB draft to move forward. >=20 > Cheers, >=20 > Christian. >=20 > -----Message d'origine----- > De=A0: softwires-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] De = la > part de Suresh Krishnan > Envoy=E9=A0: vendredi 24 mai 2013 06:21 > =C0=A0: Softwires WG > Cc=A0: Yong Cui > Objet=A0: [Softwires] Working group last call for > draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-02 >=20 > Hi all, > This message starts a two week softwire working group last call on > advancing the draft defining the DS-Lite MIB as a Standards Track RFC. > The authors believe that this version has addressed all the issues raised= until > now on the document. The latest version of the draft is available at >=20 > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-02.txt > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-02 >=20 > Substantive comments and statements of support/opposition for advancing > this document should be directed to the mailing list. Editorial suggestio= ns > can be sent directly to the authors. The chairs will send in their commen= ts as > well during the last call period. This last call will conclude on June 2,= 2013. >=20 > Regards, > Suresh & Yong >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >=20 > ______________________________________________________________ > ___________________________________________________________ >=20 > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez re= cu ce > message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete > altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. >=20 > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and de= lete > this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for messa= ges > that have been modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires From leo.liubing@huawei.com Fri May 24 01:46:38 2013 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 32D7821F90AC for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 01:46:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.417 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.417 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.182, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 20psDJG-Iulg for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 01:46:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CB6121F9051 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 01:46:33 -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 ARR65898; Fri, 24 May 2013 08:46:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Fri, 24 May 2013 09:45:46 +0100 Received: from NKGEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.32) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Fri, 24 May 2013 09:46:01 +0100 Received: from NKGEML506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.240]) by nkgeml401-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.32]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Fri, 24 May 2013 16:45:58 +0800 From: "Liubing (Leo)" To: Shishio Tsuchiya , "softwires@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Comments on 6rd mib draft-//RE: [Softwires] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-cai-softwire-6rd-mib-05.txt Thread-Index: AQHOUk1MejxnUSRyJ0iPZHqcZYGPcpkIi1KAgAt78SA= Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 08:45:57 +0000 Message-ID: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D729168@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> References: <20130516155142.4000.66336.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5195EE63.1090808@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <5195EE63.1090808@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.98.161] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: [Softwires] Comments on 6rd mib draft-//RE: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-cai-softwire-6rd-mib-05.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, 24 May 2013 08:46:38 -0000 Hi, Shishio & All I support this draft. I think it is valuable to have a dedicated MIB defini= tion for 6rd. A few comments: 1. Current draft hasn't contained conformance definition yet. But it is nee= ded, please check section 4.8 in RFC4181 for details. 2. The top level division of the sixRdMIB should follow the recommended sty= le of separating objects, notification, and conformance at the top level. 3. There were several places using "InetAddressIPv6" directly. Please check= rfc4001, it is specified that we should use the InetAddressType/InetAddres= s pair for both IPv4/IPv6 address definition.=20 4. In the MIB definition, there is a sixRdDevice object, but it was not inc= luded in section 4 "Structure of the MIB Module". I think it is better to r= emain a consistency in MIB description and definition. Best regards, Bing > -----Original Message----- > From: softwires-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Shishio Tsuchiya > Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 4:46 PM > To: softwires@ietf.org > Subject: [Softwires] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-cai-softwire-6rd-mib-05.txt >=20 > I update 6rd MIB. > Add sixRdSecurityCheck object. > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cai-softwire-6rd-mib-05#section-4.3 >=20 > The MIB counts drop packets by 6rd receiving rule. > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5969#section-9.2 >=20 > Regards, > -Shishio >=20 > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: I-D Action: draft-cai-softwire-6rd-mib-05.txt > Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 08:51:43 -0700 > From: > Reply-To: > To: >=20 >=20 > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. >=20 >=20 > Title : Definitions of Managed Objects for 6rd > Author(s) : Lei Cai > Jacni Qin > Shishio Tsuchiya > Filename : draft-cai-softwire-6rd-mib-05.txt > Pages : 10 > Date : 2013-05-16 >=20 > Abstract: > This document defines a portion of the Management Information Base > (MIB) for use with network management protocols. In particular, it > defines objects for managing 6rd devices. >=20 >=20 > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cai-softwire-6rd-mib >=20 > There's also a htmlized version available at: > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cai-softwire-6rd-mib-05 >=20 > A diff from the previous version is available at: > http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-cai-softwire-6rd-mib-05 >=20 >=20 > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >=20 > _______________________________________________ > 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 > . >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires From cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn Fri May 24 05:57:06 2013 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 A6D6121F91C4 for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 05:57:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.691 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.691 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP=1.908] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IRAU6jqXqqIg for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 05:57:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tsinghua.edu.cn (tu204036.ip.tsinghua.edu.cn [166.111.204.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33F5821F90EA for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 05:56:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.103] (unknown [1.202.9.159]) by app1 (Coremail) with SMTP id CsxvpgAHUCGOY59RQKkQAA--.24922S2; Fri, 24 May 2013 20:56:47 +0800 (CST) From: Yong Cui Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 20:56:45 +0800 Message-Id: To: Softwires WG Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1081) X-CM-TRANSID: CsxvpgAHUCGOY59RQKkQAA--.24922S2 X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjDUn29KB7ZKAUJUUUUU529EdanIXcx71UUUUU7v73 VFW2AGmfu7bjvjm3AaLaJ3UjIYCTnIWjp_UUU827CY07I20VC2zVCF04k26cxKx2IYs7xG 6rWj6s0DM28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rwAS0I0E0xvYzxvE52x082IY62kv0487Mc02F40EFcxC0V AKzVAqx4xG6I80ewAv7VCjz48v1sIEY20_Kr1UJr1lOx8S6xCaFVCjc4AY6r1j6r4UM4x0 Y48IcxkI7VAKI48JM4x0x7Aq67IIx4CEVc8vx2IErcIFxwCF04k20xvY0x0EwIxGrwCF04 k20xvE74AGY7Cv6cx26w4UJr1UMI8I3I0E5I8CrVAFwI0_Jr0_Jr4lx2IqxVCjr7xvwVAF wI0_JrI_JrWlx4CE17CEb7AF67AKxVWUXVWUAwCIc40Y0x0EwIxGrbIYCTnIWIevJa73Uj IFyTuYvjfUsvtCUUUUU X-CM-SenderInfo: 5fxl50tqj632xlqjx3vdohv3gofq/ Cc: Yong Cui Subject: [Softwires] Call for adoption of draft-cai-softwire-6rd-mib-05 as wg draft 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, 24 May 2013 12:57:06 -0000 Hi all, This call is being initiated to determine whether there is WG consensus towards adoption of draft-cai-softwire-6rd-mib-05 as a softwire WG draft. Please state whether or not you're in favor of the adoption by replying to this email. If you are not in favor, please also state your objections in your response. The call will complete at midnight PDT on 2013-06-02. Regards Suresh & Yong From shtsuchi@cisco.com Sun May 26 06:21:55 2013 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 A2B7D21F8FA5 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 06:21:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id COOFVF3hdNXO for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 06:21:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bgl-iport-2.cisco.com (bgl-iport-2.cisco.com [72.163.197.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C85821F8FF3 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 06:21:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3389; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1369574508; x=1370784108; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=y1jqsF4QZ9UOh+f4CdTaPiGMbb8QH9zxKziDNNKWhTc=; b=j4zjnbm7lB5JHB08R1o+VTRMEypWoZBtknn9i1bxQSZ09bcKqb6lBfZA xyhml0qmlDr8mAxW6UmunEiamJqgnD34m5fivfFbKH4UGjpL69NuJS36y WUUliZcC38Vk81qJa0RMCZAwRuJYA8IVEs7sJY1pvRb6NsCzKTfuBwGnX 4=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,744,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="31700289" Received: from vla196-nat.cisco.com (HELO bgl-core-3.cisco.com) ([72.163.197.24]) by bgl-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 May 2013 13:21:29 +0000 Received: from tky-shtsuchi-89110.cisco.com (tky-shtsuchi-89110.cisco.com [10.71.44.91]) by bgl-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r4QDLPdj014166; Sun, 26 May 2013 13:21:25 GMT Message-ID: <51A20C55.4080902@cisco.com> Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 22:21:25 +0900 From: Shishio Tsuchiya User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: leo.liubing@huawei.com References: <20130516155142.4000.66336.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5195EE63.1090808@cisco.com> <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D729168@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D729168@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: softwires@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Softwires] Comments on 6rd mib draft-//RE: Fwd: I-D Action: draft-cai-softwire-6rd-mib-05.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, 26 May 2013 13:21:55 -0000 Bing Thanks for your comment and feedback. I will update that to the next version. Regards, -Shishio (2013/05/24 17:45), Liubing (Leo) wrote: > Hi, Shishio & All > > I support this draft. I think it is valuable to have a dedicated MIB definition for 6rd. > > A few comments: > 1. Current draft hasn't contained conformance definition yet. But it is needed, please check section 4.8 in RFC4181 for details. > 2. The top level division of the sixRdMIB should follow the recommended style of separating objects, notification, and conformance at the top level. > 3. There were several places using "InetAddressIPv6" directly. Please check rfc4001, it is specified that we should use the InetAddressType/InetAddress pair for both IPv4/IPv6 address definition. > 4. In the MIB definition, there is a sixRdDevice object, but it was not included in section 4 "Structure of the MIB Module". I think it is better to remain a consistency in MIB description and definition. > > Best regards, > Bing > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: softwires-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] On >> Behalf Of Shishio Tsuchiya >> Sent: Friday, May 17, 2013 4:46 PM >> To: softwires@ietf.org >> Subject: [Softwires] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-cai-softwire-6rd-mib-05.txt >> >> I update 6rd MIB. >> Add sixRdSecurityCheck object. >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cai-softwire-6rd-mib-05#section-4.3 >> >> The MIB counts drop packets by 6rd receiving rule. >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5969#section-9.2 >> >> Regards, >> -Shishio >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: I-D Action: draft-cai-softwire-6rd-mib-05.txt >> Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 08:51:43 -0700 >> From: >> Reply-To: >> To: >> >> >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts >> directories. >> >> >> Title : Definitions of Managed Objects for 6rd >> Author(s) : Lei Cai >> Jacni Qin >> Shishio Tsuchiya >> Filename : draft-cai-softwire-6rd-mib-05.txt >> Pages : 10 >> Date : 2013-05-16 >> >> Abstract: >> This document defines a portion of the Management Information Base >> (MIB) for use with network management protocols. In particular, it >> defines objects for managing 6rd devices. >> >> >> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cai-softwire-6rd-mib >> >> There's also a htmlized version available at: >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cai-softwire-6rd-mib-05 >> >> A diff from the previous version is available at: >> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-cai-softwire-6rd-mib-05 >> >> >> 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 >> . >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Softwires mailing list >> Softwires@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > . > From sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.com Sun May 26 08:03:08 2013 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 8DE4F21F86CB for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 08:03:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HJOm8t6bpLYi for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 08:03:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-f42.google.com (mail-pa0-f42.google.com [209.85.220.42]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E370021F84A7 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 08:03:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pa0-f42.google.com with SMTP id bj1so738123pad.15 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 08:03:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=Y/Qn3ppb2Bv83d4kwM1+k7zcYiE2M+bCX7gPJ7jqYyo=; b=O32kF7M2cPEImZUFmOJ/zWMYSWtaF+tmirf9CVsfPMrVqgA7idoyuikvtUnbNVguUg HIbD9iIyP1Acc5q1mz5/MjOJ22eQ46lLpuluk1lXNRdErxTb+XZJwyfz2TD1U4VtWOUy qGLqI6qJpcM2wMlb+2KA0nzrMCm50dyW9NEGqi/jNVq67qQr+DMF3PnmCUfSaFR8MaOh jZz/ZMw8jVnJ5ZF/kIVe1f8HW6Tjn1Oys6AmkoF9kjtlY9qzI0Lx4eianxrZH1SuUW8/ sr7m4igd9gyRRsJhyKtaAewNLMlbQCYndqgU51wOiLXk7ybMcSbk1GLLAhWIYz194g/o LqQA== X-Received: by 10.66.26.203 with SMTP id n11mr19257135pag.196.1369580583695; Sun, 26 May 2013 08:03:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.107] ([114.255.40.13]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id rn7sm24703680pbc.12.2013.05.26.08.03.01 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 26 May 2013 08:03:03 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 From: Qi Sun In-Reply-To: <519EEA1E.5090006@ericsson.com> Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 23:02:54 +0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <519EEA1E.5090006@ericsson.com> To: Suresh Krishnan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: Softwires WG , Yong Cui Subject: Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-03 X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 15:03:08 -0000 Support. Best Regards, Qi Sun On 2013-5-24, at =E4=B8=8B=E5=8D=8812:18, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > Hi all, > This message starts a two week softwire working group last call on > advancing the draft defining the Softwire Mesh MIB as a Standards = Track > RFC. The authors believe that this version has addressed all the = issues > raised until now on the document. The latest version of the draft is > available at >=20 > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-03.txt > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-03 >=20 > Substantive comments and statements of support/opposition for = advancing > this document should be directed to the mailing list. Editorial > suggestions can be sent directly to the authors. The chairs will send = in > their comments as well during the last call period. This last call = will > conclude on June 2, 2013. >=20 > Regards, > Suresh & Yong >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires From sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.com Sun May 26 08:04:47 2013 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 B393C21F856D for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 08:04:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.979 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.979 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.380, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id awsCNXPOKEgO for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 08:04:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pd0-f171.google.com (mail-pd0-f171.google.com [209.85.192.171]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0D1C21F84A7 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 08:04:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pd0-f171.google.com with SMTP id z11so5791407pdj.30 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 08:04:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=zX5bNJcUK5zEzB7qrUpjwJ/g/bKLI2m/XgtFwEgq6LE=; b=jwNJM2EQDT12WnenT26uDV5qUJUaQzhPNoNJbviBOb2lObN6ODK11Dffio8ov0e6BU 8TrrLOIHfEFk59StA3v0bhPFcD8frJJ3dPqGUTkcVb97R8/3gJYRn10wrYbkPDgdIsZ4 CRjpJVJvHgIHujmEmE9ToUroVDnXL6gPGLnZe/bLDn5mF4GpWZI0/DwBPiSyjPpqZdAj zVAWWvYh5HxcPQZbNMwtPC1BfemWNEYsy2yh6IZDoOAO03vWCf76kT8u3Qjcg7fmhAjc K/cK/T3L+ZRdhJO/8hBQ5EVcrYK3uEDFpb0cfZvGcBxAWP6CKvlf2imek9qudkr1dogg Ruzw== X-Received: by 10.67.10.4 with SMTP id dw4mr25991547pad.177.1369580682630; Sun, 26 May 2013 08:04:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.107] ([114.255.40.13]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id cc15sm26526085pac.1.2013.05.26.08.04.39 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 26 May 2013 08:04:42 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 From: Qi Sun In-Reply-To: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D729132@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> Date: Sun, 26 May 2013 23:04:33 +0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <16129144-4054-4130-B917-81353C0C3710@gmail.com> References: <519EEABD.1090107@ericsson.com> <8165_1369382478_519F1E4E_8165_3283_1_983A1D8DA0DA5F4EB747BF34CBEE5CD15C3BCBA27B@PUEXCB1C.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D729132@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> To: Liubing (Leo) X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: Softwires WG , Yong Cui Subject: Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-02 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, 26 May 2013 15:04:47 -0000 +1 support. Best Regards, Qi Sun On 2013-5-24, at =E4=B8=8B=E5=8D=884:08, Liubing (Leo) wrote: > +1 also support. >=20 > B.R. > Bing >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: softwires-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] = On >> Behalf Of christian.jacquenet@orange.com >> Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 4:01 PM >> To: Suresh Krishnan; Softwires WG >> Cc: Yong Cui >> Subject: Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for >> draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-02 >>=20 >> WG, >>=20 >> I support the DS-Lite MIB draft to move forward. >>=20 >> Cheers, >>=20 >> Christian. >>=20 >> -----Message d'origine----- >> De : softwires-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] = De la >> part de Suresh Krishnan >> Envoy=C3=A9 : vendredi 24 mai 2013 06:21 >> =C3=80 : Softwires WG >> Cc : Yong Cui >> Objet : [Softwires] Working group last call for >> draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-02 >>=20 >> Hi all, >> This message starts a two week softwire working group last call on >> advancing the draft defining the DS-Lite MIB as a Standards Track = RFC. >> The authors believe that this version has addressed all the issues = raised until >> now on the document. The latest version of the draft is available at >>=20 >> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-02.txt >> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-02 >>=20 >> Substantive comments and statements of support/opposition for = advancing >> this document should be directed to the mailing list. Editorial = suggestions >> can be sent directly to the authors. The chairs will send in their = comments as >> well during the last call period. This last call will conclude on = June 2, 2013. >>=20 >> Regards, >> Suresh & Yong >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> Softwires mailing list >> Softwires@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires >>=20 >> ______________________________________________________________ >> ___________________________________________________________ >>=20 >> Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations >> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc >> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous = avez recu ce >> message par erreur, veuillez le signaler >> a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les = messages >> electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, >> France Telecom - Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a = ete >> altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. >>=20 >> This message and its attachments may contain confidential or = privileged >> information that may be protected by law; >> they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. >> If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender = and delete >> this message and its attachments. >> As emails may be altered, France Telecom - Orange is not liable for = messages >> that have been modified, changed or falsified. >> Thank you. >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 eleven.fuyu@huawei.com Sun May 26 18:32:52 2013 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 F325221F9428 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 18:32:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L-4z9UfwEmWh for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 18:32:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E486721F9588 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 18:32:46 -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 ART39050; Mon, 27 May 2013 01:32:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Mon, 27 May 2013 02:32:16 +0100 Received: from nkgeml407-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.38) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Mon, 27 May 2013 09:32:38 +0800 Received: from NKGEML505-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.159]) by nkgeml407-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.38]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Mon, 27 May 2013 09:32:35 +0800 From: "Fuyu (Eleven)" To: Suresh Krishnan Thread-Topic: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-03 Thread-Index: AQHOWiI480fulm+LakGmMjEVjL5ouZkYP5ig Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 01:32:35 +0000 Message-ID: References: <519EEA1E.5090006@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.99.137] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Cc: Softwires WG , Yong Cui Subject: Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-03 X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 01:32:52 -0000 KzEgc3VwcG9ydA0KDQoNCkNoZWVycw0KWXUNCg0KLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdlLS0tLS0N CkZyb206IHNvZnR3aXJlcy1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnIFttYWlsdG86c29mdHdpcmVzLWJvdW5j ZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmddIE9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZiBRaSBTdW4NClNlbnQ6IFN1bmRheSwgTWF5IDI2LCAy MDEzIDExOjAzIFBNDQpUbzogU3VyZXNoIEtyaXNobmFuDQpDYzogU29mdHdpcmVzIFdHOyBZb25n IEN1aQ0KU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFtTb2Z0d2lyZXNdIFdvcmtpbmcgZ3JvdXAgbGFzdCBjYWxsIGZv ciBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLXNvZnR3aXJlLW1lc2gtbWliLTAzDQoNClN1cHBvcnQuDQoNCkJlc3QgUmVn YXJkcywNClFpIFN1bg0KDQoNCk9uIDIwMTMtNS0yNCwgYXQg5LiL5Y2IMTI6MTgsIFN1cmVzaCBL cmlzaG5hbiB3cm90ZToNCg0KPiBIaSBhbGwsDQo+ICBUaGlzIG1lc3NhZ2Ugc3RhcnRzIGEgdHdv IHdlZWsgc29mdHdpcmUgd29ya2luZyBncm91cCBsYXN0IGNhbGwgb24NCj4gYWR2YW5jaW5nIHRo ZSBkcmFmdCBkZWZpbmluZyB0aGUgU29mdHdpcmUgTWVzaCBNSUIgYXMgYSBTdGFuZGFyZHMgVHJh Y2sNCj4gUkZDLiBUaGUgYXV0aG9ycyBiZWxpZXZlIHRoYXQgdGhpcyB2ZXJzaW9uIGhhcyBhZGRy ZXNzZWQgYWxsIHRoZSBpc3N1ZXMNCj4gcmFpc2VkIHVudGlsIG5vdyBvbiB0aGUgZG9jdW1lbnQu IFRoZSBsYXRlc3QgdmVyc2lvbiBvZiB0aGUgZHJhZnQgaXMNCj4gYXZhaWxhYmxlIGF0DQo+IA0K PiBodHRwOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL2lkL2RyYWZ0LWlldGYtc29mdHdpcmUtbWVzaC1taWItMDMu dHh0DQo+IGh0dHA6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9odG1sL2RyYWZ0LWlldGYtc29mdHdpcmUtbWVz aC1taWItMDMNCj4gDQo+IFN1YnN0YW50aXZlIGNvbW1lbnRzIGFuZCBzdGF0ZW1lbnRzIG9mIHN1 cHBvcnQvb3Bwb3NpdGlvbiBmb3IgYWR2YW5jaW5nDQo+IHRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQgc2hvdWxkIGJl IGRpcmVjdGVkIHRvIHRoZSBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QuIEVkaXRvcmlhbA0KPiBzdWdnZXN0aW9ucyBj YW4gYmUgc2VudCBkaXJlY3RseSB0byB0aGUgYXV0aG9ycy4gVGhlIGNoYWlycyB3aWxsIHNlbmQg aW4NCj4gdGhlaXIgY29tbWVudHMgYXMgd2VsbCBkdXJpbmcgdGhlIGxhc3QgY2FsbCBwZXJpb2Qu IFRoaXMgbGFzdCBjYWxsIHdpbGwNCj4gY29uY2x1ZGUgb24gSnVuZSAyLCAyMDEzLg0KPiANCj4g UmVnYXJkcywNCj4gU3VyZXNoICYgWW9uZw0KPiANCj4gX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCj4gU29mdHdpcmVzIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KPiBTb2Z0 d2lyZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4gaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9z b2Z0d2lyZXMNCg0KX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X18NClNvZnR3aXJlcyBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNClNvZnR3aXJlc0BpZXRmLm9yZw0KaHR0cHM6Ly93 d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9zb2Z0d2lyZXMNCg== From jiangsheng@huawei.com Sun May 26 18:42:03 2013 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 B473521F95EE for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 18:42:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.524 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bDNF8z-E8an6 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 18:41:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B815A21F95EB for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 18:41:58 -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 ART39501; Mon, 27 May 2013 01:41:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Mon, 27 May 2013 02:41:34 +0100 Received: from NKGEML408-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.39) by lhreml402-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.241) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Mon, 27 May 2013 02:41:56 +0100 Received: from NKGEML512-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.3]) by nkgeml408-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.39]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Mon, 27 May 2013 09:41:47 +0800 From: Sheng Jiang To: "Liubing (Leo)" , Suresh Krishnan , Softwires WG Thread-Topic: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-03 Thread-Index: AQHOWFjp1oLIbcGvy0SAIcV8tNSWFpkYRfGw Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 01:41:47 +0000 Message-ID: <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B923AC97FE2@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> References: <519EEA1E.5090006@ericsson.com> <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D729113@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D729113@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.98.145] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Cc: Yong Cui , "draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-03 X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 01:42:03 -0000 U3VwcG9ydCBmb3IgYWR2YW5jZS4NCg0KU2hlbmcNCg0KPi0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0t LS0tDQo+RnJvbTogc29mdHdpcmVzLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmcgW21haWx0bzpzb2Z0d2lyZXMt Ym91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZ10gT24NCj5CZWhhbGYgT2YgTGl1YmluZyAoTGVvKQ0KPlNlbnQ6IEZy aWRheSwgTWF5IDI0LCAyMDEzIDM6NTQgUE0NCj5UbzogU3VyZXNoIEtyaXNobmFuOyBTb2Z0d2ly ZXMgV0cNCj5DYzogWW9uZyBDdWk7IGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtc29mdHdpcmUtbWVzaC1taWJAdG9vbHMu aWV0Zi5vcmcNCj5TdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogW1NvZnR3aXJlc10gV29ya2luZyBncm91cCBsYXN0IGNh bGwgZm9yDQo+ZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1zb2Z0d2lyZS1tZXNoLW1pYi0wMw0KPg0KPlN1cHBvcnQuIEkg dGhpbmsgdGhlIGRyYWZ0IGlzIG1hdHVyZSBlbm91Z2ggdG8gbW92ZSBmb3J3YXJkLg0KPg0KPk9u bHkgYSBtaW5vciBxdWVzdGlvbjoNCj5JIGZvdW5kIG1vc3Qgb2YgdGhlIG9iamVjdHMnIE1BWC1B Q0NFU1Mgd2VyZSBkZWZpbmVkIGFzICJub3QtYWNjZXNzaWJsZSIsDQo+ZXhjZXB0IGZvciB0aGUg c3dtRW5jYXBzSUlQRHN0VHlwZSwgc3dtRW5jYXBzSUlQRHN0IGFuZA0KPnN3bUJHUE5laWdoYm9y VHVubmVsVHlwZSB3aGljaCB3ZXJlICJyZWFkLW9ubHkiLg0KPklzIHRoZXJlIGFueSBzcGVjaWFs IGNvbnNpZGVyYXRpb24gdGhhdCB0aGUgYWNjZXNzIHJpZ2h0cyBhcmUgc28gbGltaXRlZD8gV291 bGQNCj5pdCBiZSBoYXJtZnVsIHRvIG1ha2UgdGhlIG90aGVyIG9iamVjdHMgYXMgInJlYWQtb25s eSI/DQo+DQo+Qi5SLg0KPkJpbmcNCj4NCj4+IC0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0tDQo+ PiBGcm9tOiBzb2Z0d2lyZXMtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZyBbbWFpbHRvOnNvZnR3aXJlcy1ib3Vu Y2VzQGlldGYub3JnXSBPbg0KPj4gQmVoYWxmIE9mIFN1cmVzaCBLcmlzaG5hbg0KPj4gU2VudDog RnJpZGF5LCBNYXkgMjQsIDIwMTMgMTI6MTkgUE0NCj4+IFRvOiBTb2Z0d2lyZXMgV0cNCj4+IENj OiBZb25nIEN1aQ0KPj4gU3ViamVjdDogW1NvZnR3aXJlc10gV29ya2luZyBncm91cCBsYXN0IGNh bGwgZm9yDQo+PiBkcmFmdC1pZXRmLXNvZnR3aXJlLW1lc2gtbWliLTAzDQo+Pg0KPj4gSGkgYWxs LA0KPj4gICBUaGlzIG1lc3NhZ2Ugc3RhcnRzIGEgdHdvIHdlZWsgc29mdHdpcmUgd29ya2luZyBn cm91cCBsYXN0IGNhbGwgb24NCj4+IGFkdmFuY2luZyB0aGUgZHJhZnQgZGVmaW5pbmcgdGhlIFNv ZnR3aXJlIE1lc2ggTUlCIGFzIGEgU3RhbmRhcmRzIFRyYWNrDQo+PiBSRkMuIFRoZSBhdXRob3Jz IGJlbGlldmUgdGhhdCB0aGlzIHZlcnNpb24gaGFzIGFkZHJlc3NlZCBhbGwgdGhlIGlzc3Vlcw0K Pj4gcmFpc2VkIHVudGlsIG5vdyBvbiB0aGUgZG9jdW1lbnQuIFRoZSBsYXRlc3QgdmVyc2lvbiBv ZiB0aGUgZHJhZnQgaXMNCj4+IGF2YWlsYWJsZSBhdA0KPj4NCj4+IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5v cmcvaWQvZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1zb2Z0d2lyZS1tZXNoLW1pYi0wMy50eHQNCj4+IGh0dHA6Ly90b29s cy5pZXRmLm9yZy9odG1sL2RyYWZ0LWlldGYtc29mdHdpcmUtbWVzaC1taWItMDMNCj4+DQo+PiBT dWJzdGFudGl2ZSBjb21tZW50cyBhbmQgc3RhdGVtZW50cyBvZiBzdXBwb3J0L29wcG9zaXRpb24g Zm9yIGFkdmFuY2luZw0KPj4gdGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCBzaG91bGQgYmUgZGlyZWN0ZWQgdG8gdGhl IG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdC4gRWRpdG9yaWFsDQo+PiBzdWdnZXN0aW9ucyBjYW4gYmUgc2VudCBkaXJl Y3RseSB0byB0aGUgYXV0aG9ycy4gVGhlIGNoYWlycyB3aWxsIHNlbmQgaW4NCj4+IHRoZWlyIGNv bW1lbnRzIGFzIHdlbGwgZHVyaW5nIHRoZSBsYXN0IGNhbGwgcGVyaW9kLiBUaGlzIGxhc3QgY2Fs bCB3aWxsDQo+PiBjb25jbHVkZSBvbiBKdW5lIDIsIDIwMTMuDQo+Pg0KPj4gUmVnYXJkcywNCj4+ IFN1cmVzaCAmIFlvbmcNCj4+DQo+PiBfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fXw0KPj4gU29mdHdpcmVzIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KPj4gU29mdHdpcmVzQGll dGYub3JnDQo+PiBodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL3NvZnR3aXJl cw0KPl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQo+U29m dHdpcmVzIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KPlNvZnR3aXJlc0BpZXRmLm9yZw0KPmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3Lmll dGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vc29mdHdpcmVzDQo= From chenycmx@gmail.com Sun May 26 18:58:41 2013 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 057C421F94DF for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 18:58:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sZTxEB7u5Bgg for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 18:58:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-x229.google.com (mail-pb0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F9DA21F911B for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 18:58:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pb0-f41.google.com with SMTP id xb12so6275464pbc.28 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 18:58:39 -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=Im/jsNn2m88qhvCzs91b99fOo5gmIt896iEoVvPYSJQ=; b=yqHYTHRyct2rrysAc4bsNaTpKi2FpkPhGEBXN8YrHaqjhYyHUXopi8+BclhujogoCP rNYI3l0LvstBpW+L7zIsawlhIkOPVxGHShKssz2FwV4C9NXabaMehynYDXSo1QVasJru 8NwO4mN55JCqrZY220HrVj+SkEYtOau6D7rbU6ROR6y3zkQ/PWbW8Z+d0B+zIl+TImb4 ir/HYR2zH3feDD2QacSu3GSk5PD7ftIxpu76mLphu6vSuhu6MH6JUR/qSb8ze2gYlN2W pPkcQflbS/F308kcjvyTzAU8Gjs/PVuDMdaf/kH+xs93tHJIdpws0OTKPuB+SXa95A96 Awtw== X-Received: by 10.68.56.231 with SMTP id d7mr27092591pbq.49.1369619919762; Sun, 26 May 2013 18:58:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from user-902eaffedc ([166.111.131.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id yj2sm26339308pbb.40.2013.05.26.18.58.35 for (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 26 May 2013 18:58:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 09:58:35 +0800 From: "Yuchi Chen" To: "Liubing (Leo)" , "Suresh Krishnan" , "softwires WG" References: <519EEABD.1090107@ericsson.com> <8165_1369382478_519F1E4E_8165_3283_1_983A1D8DA0DA5F4EB747BF34CBEE5CD15C3BCBA27B@PUEXCB1C.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>, <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D729132@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> X-Priority: 3 X-GUID: 74D33B1D-3606-4EC0-AF85-0095CF80B8A4 X-Has-Attach: no X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.0.1.88[cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <201305270958322819791@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart306754548774_=----" Cc: Yong Cui Subject: Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-02 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: Mon, 27 May 2013 01:58:41 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_001_NextPart306754548774_=---- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SGkgYWxsLA0KDQorMSwgc3VwcG9ydCBmb3IgbW92aW5nIHRoaXMgZHJhZnQgZm9yd2FyZC4NCg0K QmVzdCByZWdhcmRzIQ0KDQoNCg0KWXVjaGkgQ2hlbiANCg0KRnJvbTogTGl1YmluZyAoTGVvKQ0K RGF0ZTogMjAxMy0wNS0yNCAxNjowOA0KVG86IFN1cmVzaCBLcmlzaG5hbjsgU29mdHdpcmVzIFdH DQpDQzogWW9uZyBDdWkNClN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBbU29mdHdpcmVzXSBXb3JraW5nIGdyb3VwIGxh c3QgY2FsbCBmb3IgZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1zb2Z0d2lyZS1kc2xpdGUtbWliLTAyDQorMSBhbHNvIHN1 cHBvcnQuDQoNCkIuUi4NCkJpbmcNCg0KPiAtLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KPiBG cm9tOiBzb2Z0d2lyZXMtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZyBbbWFpbHRvOnNvZnR3aXJlcy1ib3VuY2Vz QGlldGYub3JnXSBPbg0KPiBCZWhhbGYgT2YgY2hyaXN0aWFuLmphY3F1ZW5ldEBvcmFuZ2UuY29t DQo+IFNlbnQ6IEZyaWRheSwgTWF5IDI0LCAyMDEzIDQ6MDEgUE0NCj4gVG86IFN1cmVzaCBLcmlz aG5hbjsgU29mdHdpcmVzIFdHDQo+IENjOiBZb25nIEN1aQ0KPiBTdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogW1NvZnR3 aXJlc10gV29ya2luZyBncm91cCBsYXN0IGNhbGwgZm9yDQo+IGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtc29mdHdpcmUt ZHNsaXRlLW1pYi0wMg0KPiANCj4gV0csDQo+IA0KPiBJIHN1cHBvcnQgdGhlIERTLUxpdGUgTUlC IGRyYWZ0IHRvIG1vdmUgZm9yd2FyZC4NCj4gDQo+IENoZWVycywNCj4gDQo+IENocmlzdGlhbi4N Cj4gDQo+IC0tLS0tTWVzc2FnZSBkJ29yaWdpbmUtLS0tLQ0KPiBEZSA6IHNvZnR3aXJlcy1ib3Vu Y2VzQGlldGYub3JnIFttYWlsdG86c29mdHdpcmVzLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmddIERlIGxhDQo+ IHBhcnQgZGUgU3VyZXNoIEtyaXNobmFuDQo+IEVudm95w6kgOiB2ZW5kcmVkaSAyNCBtYWkgMjAx MyAwNjoyMQ0KPiDDgCA6IFNvZnR3aXJlcyBXRw0KPiBDYyA6IFlvbmcgQ3VpDQo+IE9iamV0IDog W1NvZnR3aXJlc10gV29ya2luZyBncm91cCBsYXN0IGNhbGwgZm9yDQo+IGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtc29m dHdpcmUtZHNsaXRlLW1pYi0wMg0KPiANCj4gSGkgYWxsLA0KPiAgIFRoaXMgbWVzc2FnZSBzdGFy dHMgYSB0d28gd2VlayBzb2Z0d2lyZSB3b3JraW5nIGdyb3VwIGxhc3QgY2FsbCBvbg0KPiBhZHZh bmNpbmcgdGhlIGRyYWZ0IGRlZmluaW5nIHRoZSBEUy1MaXRlIE1JQiBhcyBhIFN0YW5kYXJkcyBU cmFjayBSRkMuDQo+IFRoZSBhdXRob3JzIGJlbGlldmUgdGhhdCB0aGlzIHZlcnNpb24gaGFzIGFk ZHJlc3NlZCBhbGwgdGhlIGlzc3VlcyByYWlzZWQgdW50aWwNCj4gbm93IG9uIHRoZSBkb2N1bWVu dC4gVGhlIGxhdGVzdCB2ZXJzaW9uIG9mIHRoZSBkcmFmdCBpcyBhdmFpbGFibGUgYXQNCj4gDQo+ IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaWQvZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1zb2Z0d2lyZS1kc2xpdGUtbWliLTAy LnR4dA0KPiBodHRwOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9kcmFmdC1pZXRmLXNvZnR3aXJlLWRz bGl0ZS1taWItMDINCj4gDQo+IFN1YnN0YW50aXZlIGNvbW1lbnRzIGFuZCBzdGF0ZW1lbnRzIG9m IHN1cHBvcnQvb3Bwb3NpdGlvbiBmb3IgYWR2YW5jaW5nDQo+IHRoaXMgZG9jdW1lbnQgc2hvdWxk IGJlIGRpcmVjdGVkIHRvIHRoZSBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QuIEVkaXRvcmlhbCBzdWdnZXN0aW9ucw0K PiBjYW4gYmUgc2VudCBkaXJlY3RseSB0byB0aGUgYXV0aG9ycy4gVGhlIGNoYWlycyB3aWxsIHNl bmQgaW4gdGhlaXIgY29tbWVudHMgYXMNCj4gd2VsbCBkdXJpbmcgdGhlIGxhc3QgY2FsbCBwZXJp b2QuIFRoaXMgbGFzdCBjYWxsIHdpbGwgY29uY2x1ZGUgb24gSnVuZSAyLCAyMDEzLg0KPiANCj4g UmVnYXJkcywNCj4gU3VyZXNoICYgWW9uZw0KPiANCj4gX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCj4gU29mdHdpcmVzIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KPiBTb2Z0 d2lyZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4gaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9z b2Z0d2lyZXMNCj4gDQo+IF9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQo+IF9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQo+IA0KPiBDZSBtZXNzYWdlIGV0IHNlcyBwaWVj ZXMgam9pbnRlcyBwZXV2ZW50IGNvbnRlbmlyIGRlcyBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbnMNCj4gY29uZmlkZW50 aWVsbGVzIG91IHByaXZpbGVnaWVlcyBldCBuZSBkb2l2ZW50IGRvbmMNCj4gcGFzIGV0cmUgZGlm ZnVzZXMsIGV4cGxvaXRlcyBvdSBjb3BpZXMgc2FucyBhdXRvcmlzYXRpb24uIFNpIHZvdXMgYXZl eiByZWN1IGNlDQo+IG1lc3NhZ2UgcGFyIGVycmV1ciwgdmV1aWxsZXogbGUgc2lnbmFsZXINCj4g YSBsJ2V4cGVkaXRldXIgZXQgbGUgZGV0cnVpcmUgYWluc2kgcXVlIGxlcyBwaWVjZXMgam9pbnRl cy4gTGVzIG1lc3NhZ2VzDQo+IGVsZWN0cm9uaXF1ZXMgZXRhbnQgc3VzY2VwdGlibGVzIGQnYWx0 ZXJhdGlvbiwNCj4gRnJhbmNlIFRlbGVjb20gLSBPcmFuZ2UgZGVjbGluZSB0b3V0ZSByZXNwb25z YWJpbGl0ZSBzaSBjZSBtZXNzYWdlIGEgZXRlDQo+IGFsdGVyZSwgZGVmb3JtZSBvdSBmYWxzaWZp ZS4gTWVyY2kuDQo+IA0KPiBUaGlzIG1lc3NhZ2UgYW5kIGl0cyBhdHRhY2htZW50cyBtYXkgY29u dGFpbiBjb25maWRlbnRpYWwgb3IgcHJpdmlsZWdlZA0KPiBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiB0aGF0IG1heSBi ZSBwcm90ZWN0ZWQgYnkgbGF3Ow0KPiB0aGV5IHNob3VsZCBub3QgYmUgZGlzdHJpYnV0ZWQsIHVz ZWQgb3IgY29waWVkIHdpdGhvdXQgYXV0aG9yaXNhdGlvbi4NCj4gSWYgeW91IGhhdmUgcmVjZWl2 ZWQgdGhpcyBlbWFpbCBpbiBlcnJvciwgcGxlYXNlIG5vdGlmeSB0aGUgc2VuZGVyIGFuZCBkZWxl dGUNCj4gdGhpcyBtZXNzYWdlIGFuZCBpdHMgYXR0YWNobWVudHMuDQo+IEFzIGVtYWlscyBtYXkg YmUgYWx0ZXJlZCwgRnJhbmNlIFRlbGVjb20gLSBPcmFuZ2UgaXMgbm90IGxpYWJsZSBmb3IgbWVz c2FnZXMNCj4gdGhhdCBoYXZlIGJlZW4gbW9kaWZpZWQsIGNoYW5nZWQgb3IgZmFsc2lmaWVkLg0K PiBUaGFuayB5b3UuDQo+IA0KPiBfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fXw0KPiBTb2Z0d2lyZXMgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQo+IFNvZnR3aXJlc0BpZXRmLm9y Zw0KPiBodHRwczovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL3NvZnR3aXJlcw0KX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NClNvZnR3aXJlcyBt YWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNClNvZnR3aXJlc0BpZXRmLm9yZw0KaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFp bG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9zb2Z0d2lyZXM= ------=_001_NextPart306754548774_=---- Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =EF=BB=BF
Hi all,
 
+1, support for moving this draft=20 forward.
 
Best regards!
Yuchi=20 Chen 
 
Date: 2013-05-24 16:08
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for=20 draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-02
+1 also support.
 
B.R.
Bing
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: softwires-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:softwire= s-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of christian.jacquenet@orange.com
> Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 4:01&nb= sp;PM
> To: Suresh Krishnan; Softwires WG
> Cc: Yong Cui
> Subject: Re: [Softwires] Working group&= nbsp;last call for
> draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-02
> 
> WG,
> 
> I support the DS-Lite MIB draft&nb= sp;to move forward.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Christian.
> 
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : softwires-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:soft= wires-bounces@ietf.org] De la
> part de Suresh Krishnan
> Envoy=C3=A9 : vendredi 24 mai 2013=  06:21
> =C3=80 : Softwires WG
> Cc : Yong Cui
> Objet : [Softwires] Working group = last call for
> draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-02
> 
> Hi all,
>   This message starts a two&n= bsp;week softwire working group last call on=
> advancing the draft defining the D= S-Lite MIB as a Standards Track RFC.
> The authors believe that this vers= ion has addressed all the issues raised = ;until
> now on the document. The latest&nb= sp;version of the draft is available at
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-02.tx= t
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-0= 2
> 
> Substantive comments and statements of&= nbsp;support/opposition for advancing
> this document should be directed t= o the mailing list. Editorial suggestions
> can be sent directly to the a= uthors. The chairs will send in their c= omments as
> well during the last call period.&= nbsp;This last call will conclude on June&nb= sp;2, 2013.
> 
> Regards,
> Suresh & Yong
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> Softwires@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
> 
> ___________________________________________________________= ___
> ___________________________________________________________=
> 
> Ce message et ses pieces jointes&n= bsp;peuvent contenir des informations
> confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne&n= bsp;doivent donc
> pas etre diffuses, exploites ou co= pies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu&nb= sp;ce
> message par erreur, veuillez le si= gnaler
> a l'expediteur et le detruire ains= i que les pieces jointes. Les messages
> electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteratio= n,
> France Telecom - Orange decline to= ute responsabilite si ce message a ete
> altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
> 
> This message and its attachments m= ay contain confidential or privileged
> information that may be protected = by law;
> they should not be distributed, us= ed or copied without authorisation.
> If you have received this email&nb= sp;in error, please notify the sender and&nb= sp;delete
> this message and its attachments.
> As emails may be altered, France&n= bsp;Telecom - Orange is not liable for = messages
> that have been modified, changed o= r falsified.
> Thank you.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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
------=_001_NextPart306754548774_=------ From chenycmx@gmail.com Sun May 26 19:09:16 2013 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 336F421F9601 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 19:09:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.722 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.722 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.876, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZMSm5701PTaN for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 19:09:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-x233.google.com (mail-pb0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 825D921F9600 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 19:09:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pb0-f51.google.com with SMTP id jt11so6195886pbb.24 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 19:09:15 -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=Bo476jbWucl+klk/bgplgymfNIjohDTD5D5SD66PPgc=; b=LzJQA94LoaNuX1h2NHlxnjF8OrLyNi1QunXbQNmk1QVfisKCBIVHSrBSkrSHhjzsdw UiCGa46ooXAatqClLfO0MuNRuXoEYsMCYZGE9J+mobtfBxG/sYbtMEUqt4wb3EPCosLd ors/zNNi/2nuQGh/FdzUag8fFd8SW1jLPaE0UY5V3GVp/vNfLCBX3ewXKDYCXP1t5EgV MZbtfK+l6PYHbhH/5fMmjzGY5+OQlwzHPy9j29E47aY+Xq3S0Z0c+rGntl58vNlFmxaC tL+0EcE6jb12v0YPArqPtmYY4IuZ0G2kPb3gL7iY2lPZOG0X+u4pTe6b6h2xLUn2Ougo UYGw== X-Received: by 10.68.103.229 with SMTP id fz5mr27396793pbb.116.1369620555281; Sun, 26 May 2013 19:09:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from user-902eaffedc ([166.111.131.15]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ov2sm26385616pbc.34.2013.05.26.19.09.11 for (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 26 May 2013 19:09:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 10:09:11 +0800 From: "Yuchi Chen" To: "Suresh Krishnan" , "softwires WG" References: <519EEA1E.5090006@ericsson.com> X-Priority: 3 X-GUID: D73C6B2E-9539-4CB2-BE5B-C4902D20B551 X-Has-Attach: no X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.0.1.88[cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <201305271009086259372@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart826631085412_=----" Cc: Yong Cui Subject: Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-03 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: Mon, 27 May 2013 02:09:16 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_001_NextPart826631085412_=---- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SGkgYWxsLA0KDQorMSBzdXBwb3J0Lg0KDQpCZXN0IHJlZ2FyZHMhDQoNCg0KDQpZdWNoaSBDaGVu IA0KDQpGcm9tOiBTdXJlc2ggS3Jpc2huYW4NCkRhdGU6IDIwMTMtMDUtMjQgMTI6MTgNClRvOiBT b2Z0d2lyZXMgV0cNCkNDOiBZb25nIEN1aQ0KU3ViamVjdDogW1NvZnR3aXJlc10gV29ya2luZyBn cm91cCBsYXN0IGNhbGwgZm9yIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtc29mdHdpcmUtbWVzaC1taWItMDMNCkhpIGFs bCwNCiAgVGhpcyBtZXNzYWdlIHN0YXJ0cyBhIHR3byB3ZWVrIHNvZnR3aXJlIHdvcmtpbmcgZ3Jv dXAgbGFzdCBjYWxsIG9uDQphZHZhbmNpbmcgdGhlIGRyYWZ0IGRlZmluaW5nIHRoZSBTb2Z0d2ly ZSBNZXNoIE1JQiBhcyBhIFN0YW5kYXJkcyBUcmFjaw0KUkZDLiBUaGUgYXV0aG9ycyBiZWxpZXZl IHRoYXQgdGhpcyB2ZXJzaW9uIGhhcyBhZGRyZXNzZWQgYWxsIHRoZSBpc3N1ZXMNCnJhaXNlZCB1 bnRpbCBub3cgb24gdGhlIGRvY3VtZW50LiBUaGUgbGF0ZXN0IHZlcnNpb24gb2YgdGhlIGRyYWZ0 IGlzDQphdmFpbGFibGUgYXQNCg0KaHR0cDovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9pZC9kcmFmdC1pZXRmLXNv ZnR3aXJlLW1lc2gtbWliLTAzLnR4dA0KaHR0cDovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL2h0bWwvZHJhZnQt aWV0Zi1zb2Z0d2lyZS1tZXNoLW1pYi0wMw0KDQpTdWJzdGFudGl2ZSBjb21tZW50cyBhbmQgc3Rh dGVtZW50cyBvZiBzdXBwb3J0L29wcG9zaXRpb24gZm9yIGFkdmFuY2luZw0KdGhpcyBkb2N1bWVu dCBzaG91bGQgYmUgZGlyZWN0ZWQgdG8gdGhlIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdC4gRWRpdG9yaWFsDQpzdWdn ZXN0aW9ucyBjYW4gYmUgc2VudCBkaXJlY3RseSB0byB0aGUgYXV0aG9ycy4gVGhlIGNoYWlycyB3 aWxsIHNlbmQgaW4NCnRoZWlyIGNvbW1lbnRzIGFzIHdlbGwgZHVyaW5nIHRoZSBsYXN0IGNhbGwg cGVyaW9kLiBUaGlzIGxhc3QgY2FsbCB3aWxsDQpjb25jbHVkZSBvbiBKdW5lIDIsIDIwMTMuDQoN ClJlZ2FyZHMsDQpTdXJlc2ggJiBZb25nDQoNCl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQpTb2Z0d2lyZXMgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQpTb2Z0d2lyZXNAaWV0 Zi5vcmcNCmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vc29mdHdpcmVz ------=_001_NextPart826631085412_=---- Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all,
 
+1 support.
 
Best regards!
Yuc= hi=20 Chen 
 
Date: 2013-05-24 12:18
Subject: [Softwires] Working group last call for=20 draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-03
Hi all,
  This message starts a two week&n= bsp;softwire working group last call on
advancing the draft defining the Softwire&nb= sp;Mesh MIB as a Standards Track
RFC. The authors believe that this vers= ion has addressed all the issues
raised until now on the document. The&n= bsp;latest version of the draft is
available at
 
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-03.txt
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-03
 
Substantive comments and statements of suppo= rt/opposition for advancing
this document should be directed to the=  mailing list. Editorial
suggestions can be sent directly to the=  authors. The chairs will send in
their comments as well during the last&= nbsp;call period. This last call will
conclude on June 2, 2013.
 
Regards,
Suresh & Yong
 
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
------=_001_NextPart826631085412_=------ From chenycmx@gmail.com Sun May 26 23:25:57 2013 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 7C6B921F8C00 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 23:25:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.797 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.797 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=2.796, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MtWLUF7JHrLU for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 23:25:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-f41.google.com (mail-pa0-f41.google.com [209.85.220.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBC9521F852A for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 23:25:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id rl6so6553728pac.28 for ; Sun, 26 May 2013 23:25:52 -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=/eF5Yuc5zOMh0zSqgFflCikSRvdZ0OnRgkCBHWzrQnw=; b=zyg9iLDc1oG74p7I7hTDG4H5BI2hHEakVFjfN5KO2D0I2bnSLZqdNiwHkBt+lyWggM P/fsn0/y6dh7t3PIfYMFD3IUC5IhHpYRqi02NHGpPJ5uIpMrEQ9BGu4Qt6BK1NwpchZA D1FqplFC5G9VzDQf0m24K+a9r9MyFERmihsQ1vg/KuxM1leKQtPpBLGh/WEM/13VQ1fI di/UGHcatYg8FW2sLHRdzc/BBpMHgWifctnZVrzQSU/zYtEHVaLbbkS4QvkykfRoiaDy YoQQcPaSjRMnqsr2u0TwdKa+r5OGWGcrntZE3yCVUykxNk6V+FNfa5K+c/2HGtoBdzCd useQ== X-Received: by 10.66.149.170 with SMTP id ub10mr28480860pab.58.1369635952500; Sun, 26 May 2013 23:25:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from user-902eaffedc ([166.111.68.231]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id cp1sm27265057pbc.42.2013.05.26.23.25.48 for (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 26 May 2013 23:25:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 14:25:48 +0800 From: "Yuchi Chen" To: "Liubing (Leo)" , "Suresh Krishnan" , "softwires WG" References: <519EEA1E.5090006@ericsson.com>, <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D729113@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> X-Priority: 3 X-GUID: C56E12AE-60D9-4FF9-B91E-63E91A990B6D X-Has-Attach: no X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.0.1.88[cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <2013052714254528130617@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart624641386576_=----" Cc: Yong Cui , "draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib@tools.ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-03 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: Mon, 27 May 2013 06:25:57 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_001_NextPart624641386576_=---- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SGkgQmluZywNCg0KSSB0aGluayB0aGVyZSdzIG5vdCBhbnkgc3BlY2lhbCBjb25zaWRlcmF0aW9u IGV4Y2VwdCBmb3IgY29uc2lkZXJhdGlvbiBvZiBzdGFuZGFyZC4gSW4gU01JdjIgTUlCIChSRkMy NTc4KSwgQUZBSUssIGFsbCB0aGUgaW5kZXggZWxlbWVudHMgaW4gdGhlIHNhbWUgcm93IHNob3Vs ZCBiZSBub3QtYWNjZXNzaWJsZSwgYW5kIGFuIGluZGV4IGVsZW1lbnQgY2FuIGJlIHJlYWQtb25s eSBpZiBpdCdzIHRoZSBvbmx5IG9uZSAoZGVzY3JpYmVkIGluIHNlY3Rpb24gNy43KS4gQXMgZm9y IHRoZSBvdGhlciBvYmplY3RzLCBJTUhPIHRoZSBzbWFsbGVyIGFjY2VzcyByZXN0cmljdGlvbiBp cyBiZXR0ZXIsIG1heWJlIHRoYXQncyB3aHkgdGhleSBhcmUgZGVmaW5lZCBhcyByZWFkLW9ubHkg cmF0aGVyIHRoYW4gbm90LWFjY2Vzc2libGUsIGFuZCBJIHRoaW5rIHRoaXMgbWF5IG5vdCBiZSBo YXJtZnVsIHRvIHRoZSBNSUIuIFBsZWFzZSBsZXQgbWUga25vdyBpZiB0aGVyZSdzIGFueSBtaXN0 YWtlIGluIG15IHVuZGVyc3RhbmRpbmcsIHRoYW5rcyEgOikNCg0KQmVzdCByZWdhcmRzIQ0KDQoN Cg0KWXVjaGkgQ2hlbiANCg0KRnJvbTogTGl1YmluZyAoTGVvKQ0KRGF0ZTogMjAxMy0wNS0yNCAx NTo1Mw0KVG86IFN1cmVzaCBLcmlzaG5hbjsgU29mdHdpcmVzIFdHDQpDQzogWW9uZyBDdWk7IGRy YWZ0LWlldGYtc29mdHdpcmUtbWVzaC1taWJAdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcNClN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBb U29mdHdpcmVzXSBXb3JraW5nIGdyb3VwIGxhc3QgY2FsbCBmb3IgZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1zb2Z0d2ly ZS1tZXNoLW1pYi0wMw0KU3VwcG9ydC4gSSB0aGluayB0aGUgZHJhZnQgaXMgbWF0dXJlIGVub3Vn aCB0byBtb3ZlIGZvcndhcmQuDQoNCk9ubHkgYSBtaW5vciBxdWVzdGlvbjoNCkkgZm91bmQgbW9z dCBvZiB0aGUgb2JqZWN0cycgTUFYLUFDQ0VTUyB3ZXJlIGRlZmluZWQgYXMgIm5vdC1hY2Nlc3Np YmxlIiwgZXhjZXB0IGZvciB0aGUgc3dtRW5jYXBzSUlQRHN0VHlwZSwgc3dtRW5jYXBzSUlQRHN0 IGFuZCBzd21CR1BOZWlnaGJvclR1bm5lbFR5cGUgd2hpY2ggd2VyZSAicmVhZC1vbmx5Ii4NCklz IHRoZXJlIGFueSBzcGVjaWFsIGNvbnNpZGVyYXRpb24gdGhhdCB0aGUgYWNjZXNzIHJpZ2h0cyBh cmUgc28gbGltaXRlZD8gV291bGQgaXQgYmUgaGFybWZ1bCB0byBtYWtlIHRoZSBvdGhlciBvYmpl Y3RzIGFzICJyZWFkLW9ubHkiPw0KDQpCLlIuDQpCaW5nDQoNCj4gLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNz YWdlLS0tLS0NCj4gRnJvbTogc29mdHdpcmVzLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmcgW21haWx0bzpzb2Z0 d2lyZXMtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZ10gT24NCj4gQmVoYWxmIE9mIFN1cmVzaCBLcmlzaG5hbg0K PiBTZW50OiBGcmlkYXksIE1heSAyNCwgMjAxMyAxMjoxOSBQTQ0KPiBUbzogU29mdHdpcmVzIFdH DQo+IENjOiBZb25nIEN1aQ0KPiBTdWJqZWN0OiBbU29mdHdpcmVzXSBXb3JraW5nIGdyb3VwIGxh c3QgY2FsbCBmb3INCj4gZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1zb2Z0d2lyZS1tZXNoLW1pYi0wMw0KPiANCj4gSGkg YWxsLA0KPiAgIFRoaXMgbWVzc2FnZSBzdGFydHMgYSB0d28gd2VlayBzb2Z0d2lyZSB3b3JraW5n IGdyb3VwIGxhc3QgY2FsbCBvbg0KPiBhZHZhbmNpbmcgdGhlIGRyYWZ0IGRlZmluaW5nIHRoZSBT b2Z0d2lyZSBNZXNoIE1JQiBhcyBhIFN0YW5kYXJkcyBUcmFjaw0KPiBSRkMuIFRoZSBhdXRob3Jz IGJlbGlldmUgdGhhdCB0aGlzIHZlcnNpb24gaGFzIGFkZHJlc3NlZCBhbGwgdGhlIGlzc3Vlcw0K PiByYWlzZWQgdW50aWwgbm93IG9uIHRoZSBkb2N1bWVudC4gVGhlIGxhdGVzdCB2ZXJzaW9uIG9m IHRoZSBkcmFmdCBpcw0KPiBhdmFpbGFibGUgYXQNCj4gDQo+IGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcv aWQvZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1zb2Z0d2lyZS1tZXNoLW1pYi0wMy50eHQNCj4gaHR0cDovL3Rvb2xzLmll dGYub3JnL2h0bWwvZHJhZnQtaWV0Zi1zb2Z0d2lyZS1tZXNoLW1pYi0wMw0KPiANCj4gU3Vic3Rh bnRpdmUgY29tbWVudHMgYW5kIHN0YXRlbWVudHMgb2Ygc3VwcG9ydC9vcHBvc2l0aW9uIGZvciBh ZHZhbmNpbmcNCj4gdGhpcyBkb2N1bWVudCBzaG91bGQgYmUgZGlyZWN0ZWQgdG8gdGhlIG1haWxp bmcgbGlzdC4gRWRpdG9yaWFsDQo+IHN1Z2dlc3Rpb25zIGNhbiBiZSBzZW50IGRpcmVjdGx5IHRv IHRoZSBhdXRob3JzLiBUaGUgY2hhaXJzIHdpbGwgc2VuZCBpbg0KPiB0aGVpciBjb21tZW50cyBh cyB3ZWxsIGR1cmluZyB0aGUgbGFzdCBjYWxsIHBlcmlvZC4gVGhpcyBsYXN0IGNhbGwgd2lsbA0K PiBjb25jbHVkZSBvbiBKdW5lIDIsIDIwMTMuDQo+IA0KPiBSZWdhcmRzLA0KPiBTdXJlc2ggJiBZ b25nDQo+IA0KPiBfX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f Xw0KPiBTb2Z0d2lyZXMgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQo+IFNvZnR3aXJlc0BpZXRmLm9yZw0KPiBodHRw czovL3d3dy5pZXRmLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL3NvZnR3aXJlcw0KX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NClNvZnR3aXJlcyBtYWlsaW5nIGxp c3QNClNvZnR3aXJlc0BpZXRmLm9yZw0KaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0 aW5mby9zb2Z0d2lyZXM= ------=_001_NextPart624641386576_=---- Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Bing,
 
I think there's not any special consideration except for=20 consideration of standard. In SMIv2 MIB (RFC2578), AFAIK, all the ind= ex=20 elements in the same row should be not-accessible, and an index=20 element can be read-only if it's the only one (described in section=20 7.7). As for the other objects, IMHO the smaller access restriction i= s=20 better, maybe that's why they are defined as read-only rather than=20 not-accessible, and I think this may not be harmful to the MIB. Pleas= e let=20 me know if there's any mistake in my understanding, thanks! :)
 
Best regards!
Yuc= hi=20 Chen 
 
Date: 2013-05-24 15:53
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for=20 draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-03
Support. I think the draft is mature&nb= sp;enough to move forward.
 
Only a minor question:
I found most of the objects' MAX-ACCESS=  were defined as "not-accessible", except fo= r the swmEncapsIIPDstType, swmEncapsIIPDst and sw= mBGPNeighborTunnelType which were "read-only".
Is there any special consideration that = ;the access rights are so limited? Would&nbs= p;it be harmful to make the other objec= ts as "read-only"?
 
B.R.
Bing
 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: softwires-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:softwire= s-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Suresh Krishnan
> Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 12:19&n= bsp;PM
> To: Softwires WG
> Cc: Yong Cui
> Subject: [Softwires] Working group last=  call for
> draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-03
> 
> Hi all,
>   This message starts a two&n= bsp;week softwire working group last call on=
> advancing the draft defining the S= oftwire Mesh MIB as a Standards Track
> RFC. The authors believe that this=  version has addressed all the issues
> raised until now on the document.&= nbsp;The latest version of the draft is
> available at
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-03.txt<= /DIV>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-03<= /DIV>
> 
> Substantive comments and statements of&= nbsp;support/opposition for advancing
> this document should be directed t= o the mailing list. Editorial
> suggestions can be sent directly t= o the authors. The chairs will send in<= /DIV>
> their comments as well during the&= nbsp;last call period. This last call will
> conclude on June 2, 2013.
> 
> Regards,
> Suresh & Yong
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> Softwires@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
------=_001_NextPart624641386576_=------ From ian.farrer@telekom.de Mon May 27 00:18:46 2013 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 1E1AC21F95E5 for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 00:18:46 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l9Zjih1XL1j3 for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 00:18:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tcmail93.telekom.de (tcmail93.telekom.de [80.149.113.205]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A00DA21F9452 for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 00:18:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from he113656.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.99.16]) by tcmail91.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 27 May 2013 09:18:39 +0200 Received: from HE111643.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM ([10.134.93.12]) by HE113656.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Mon, 27 May 2013 09:18:38 +0200 From: To: , Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 09:18:45 +0200 Thread-Topic: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-02 Thread-Index: Ac5aqmgR4j9BQdomTayUFXmWX5nBrA== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <519EEABD.1090107@ericsson.com> Accept-Language: en-US, de-DE Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.4.130416 acceptlanguage: en-US, de-DE Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn Subject: Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-02 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, 27 May 2013 07:18:46 -0000 I support this moving forward. Cheers, Ian On 24/05/2013 06:21, "Suresh Krishnan" wrote: >Hi all, > This message starts a two week softwire working group last call on >advancing the draft defining the DS-Lite MIB as a Standards Track RFC. >The authors believe that this version has addressed all the issues >raised until now on the document. The latest version of the draft is >available at > >http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-02.txt >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-02 > >Substantive comments and statements of support/opposition for advancing >this document should be directed to the mailing list. Editorial >suggestions can be sent directly to the authors. The chairs will send in >their comments as well during the last call period. This last call will >conclude on June 2, 2013. > >Regards, >Suresh & Yong > >_______________________________________________ >Softwires mailing list >Softwires@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires From sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.com Mon May 27 01:03:13 2013 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 0D0C121F90FD for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 01:03:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZFjVYFbyoyJc for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 01:03:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-x22f.google.com (mail-pb0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CEB521F9092 for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 01:03:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pb0-f47.google.com with SMTP id rr4so6528032pbb.20 for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 01:03:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=Wy5jZBwmY9kWK+YVeUeOLD5peiV8E8mMGy+aAEmJiM0=; b=zY7ZWFDVCou+sC3gu2rJLJiQpEOIxz9wtR64d/MGlT1VK+tPeQVHCxHTQPuhpwdUyJ TgiFdih4Lbv+B3a8P0MxRWyqtWdFNtSdiXjiKhWWLtTs3a6LNe5OI1r/RyEBviGBYl2r bjBdjrTchWkyyoQrQDJBFRT8tIKh7L8OiSBYPPkLnJRi8srpsrDkpibQRJmMnO77wknB FzSkDHUfhwoUKvfPIVKN9ghgR2T5UOOl8wN5bPNQFMW93m6vPTTH6AhRFeEUxmXSvtRH Gftr4JJBzKI13kJ+j0ENTK8zP4idbYfLD6ClhT8QmD5A78MhL0QTFTRK1Cz56GgGfaX9 0u0g== X-Received: by 10.68.245.170 with SMTP id xp10mr28502810pbc.41.1369641787755; Mon, 27 May 2013 01:03:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.58.122] ([166.111.68.231]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ov2sm27608109pbc.34.2013.05.27.01.03.05 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 27 May 2013 01:03:07 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 From: Qi Sun In-Reply-To: <519EE777.2040407@ericsson.com> Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 16:03:02 +0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <519EE777.2040407@ericsson.com> To: Suresh Krishnan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: Softwires WG , Yong Cui Subject: Re: [Softwires] Call for adoption of draft-fu-softwire-map-mib-05 as wg draft 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, 27 May 2013 08:03:13 -0000 support. Best Regards, Qi On 2013-5-24, at =E4=B8=8B=E5=8D=8812:07, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > Hi all, > This call is being initiated to determine whether there is WG > consensus towards adoption of draft-fu-softwire-map-mib-05 as a = softwire > WG draft. Please state whether or not you're in favor of the adoption = by > replying to this email. If you are not in favor, please also state = your > objections in your response. The call will complete at midnight PDT on > 2013-06-02. >=20 > Regards > Suresh & Yong >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires From sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.com Mon May 27 01:19:28 2013 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 EA4AD21F90FD for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 01:19:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.099 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7hu0mwCGDy6m for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 01:19:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-f53.google.com (mail-pa0-f53.google.com [209.85.220.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5052621F8F87 for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 01:19:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pa0-f53.google.com with SMTP id kq12so6558557pab.26 for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 01:19:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=b74+LhB6nxtTtlwq16g3epLzWlmxAPeXzyIxC98WVJc=; b=Iob+J48GpAQlB7fCFHOl37XpNW5oa8uqdP4ypXXm/uB+xjWtzBUgMOoybq3HaLOhX8 XzNf/8anZEXJs8++r2xfOgKsoNY8JkBOs+mbXU1N2Gd6liRp4xrNtjLzYCbTGdLYhMXX RP+OVDLCB96R9c/BexlitOJqyPNNSxFYT20cFqSsFPVrzvAQY7pad00ExCmRqMwL7ElL nFRVqBuaYKzb5P/TJO6lIB37szohKt1KJQtVss83t5e4NOhDMqmsCP2VNk7wn47edLH6 FNQlTvet9JXw/dDUuiM0MvP3XKqiOGBusbieUdOUxQ/HdJ/wALdFRe6FNY3pwRLRts+q rp2g== X-Received: by 10.66.88.105 with SMTP id bf9mr28730898pab.175.1369642762002; Mon, 27 May 2013 01:19:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.58.122] ([166.111.68.231]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id q8sm20904029pan.12.2013.05.27.01.19.19 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 27 May 2013 01:19:21 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 From: Qi Sun In-Reply-To: <519EE806.9080506@ericsson.com> Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 16:19:16 +0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <97777428-7416-42A3-A802-C828D3FEB036@gmail.com> References: <519EE806.9080506@ericsson.com> To: Suresh Krishnan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: Softwires WG , Yong Cui Subject: Re: [Softwires] Call for adoption of draft-jiang-softwire-map-radius-04 as wg draft 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, 27 May 2013 08:19:28 -0000 support. Best Regards, Qi On 2013-5-24, at =E4=B8=8B=E5=8D=8812:09, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > Hi all, > This call is being initiated to determine whether there is WG > consensus towards adoption of draft-jiang-softwire-map-radius-04 as a > softwire WG draft. Please state whether or not you're in favor of the > adoption by replying to this email. If you are not in favor, please = also > state your objections in your response. The call will complete at > midnight PDT on 2013-06-02. >=20 > Regards > Suresh & Yong >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires From sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.com Mon May 27 01:39:42 2013 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 F10B221F9092 for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 01:39:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.349 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.349 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.250, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2Pk8V3atWUE9 for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 01:39:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pa0-f46.google.com (mail-pa0-f46.google.com [209.85.220.46]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44CB721F905B for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 01:39:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id fa10so6583801pad.5 for ; Mon, 27 May 2013 01:39:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=1KkIbVH9oyjwmp+lmPnu3B7pPXgU/xHwsjCXqEkJJeU=; b=JZ2gdkcP8+AESoDIBzd0iwhBwS3/Y9IrVXZrMAYmNVqzcxfesDvJxfZuSt6nJmCNg2 K2emzfk8PlCPASmcpUXFCu9A6+cwXCE7npq0bbP+veiW24dWwa3VHyhvz790MpU5RcYT CTJstlYP/mUFNva4DILH4S6drwFhW5uacPoqhHQcwEQcJnynNDRhoJnzJreTKPREaf8u kduTAuuidfpA9iv3x2zR6+adaKWhG5U7e1uOODYL6xnZou3eR/eLUcRrI8MGEFTYtGpq Fe+NjkxoJQY021EflVcldJ5NBIfYZofSGvLymMArNf6apfeYSIWHCcdXV3cV67qad96q hIdA== X-Received: by 10.68.212.72 with SMTP id ni8mr28009758pbc.114.1369643976967; Mon, 27 May 2013 01:39:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.58.122] ([166.111.68.231]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id vv6sm29754240pab.6.2013.05.27.01.39.34 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 27 May 2013 01:39:36 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 From: Qi Sun In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 16:39:31 +0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: softwires@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Softwires] Provisioning Format for CPE BR/lwAFTR Address 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, 27 May 2013 08:39:42 -0000 Dear all, Here is my opinions on the issues.=20 The DMR sub-option for MAP-T is not that compatible to the current logic = of Unified CPE, i.e. using presence or absence of options to tell which = mode to configure.Would it be possible to separate the DMR sub-option = from MAP DHCP to another doc? As I see, this option causes the = difference in provisioning between MAP-E and MAP-T. And currently there = is no DMR in MAP-E draft. As for the multiple BRs issue, I think it reasonable to not constrain = this usage. But more thinkings are required on how to make it work = well. Or could we do as 6RD does (Ole: allow for multiple BRs, but not = specify how multiple BRs could be used)? Personally speaking, I'm in favor of using RFC6334 for BR/lwAFTR address = provisioning. In this way, we can leverage the existing standard, which = may not delay the overall standardizing process, but also feasible.=20 Hope this helps. Best Regards, Qi On 2013-5-3, at =E4=B8=8B=E5=8D=8811:23, = wrote: > Hi Ole, >=20 > See inline. >=20 > Cheers, > Ian >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >> Ian, >>=20 >>> Sorry to dig this one up again, but although there has been a fair = bit >>> of discussion around the topic, I don't think that we have so far >>> reached an agreement on how to provision sw CPEs with the address of = the >>> concentrator for MAP-E and lw4o6. We need to get a final answer on = this >>> as there's a few drafts (softwire-unified-cpe, softwire-map-dhcp, >>> softwire-lw4over6) that are relying on it. >>>=20 >>> To try and summarise what's already out there: >>> The Unified CPE & lw4o6 drafts propose the use of DHCPv6 Option 64 = (the >>> DS-Lite AFTR FQDN option) >>> Map-dhcp describes the use of the default mapping rule (DMR) to = provide >>> the /128 of the BR >>>=20 >>> I think that it's reasonable to say that both work I.e. They = contain >>> enough information to provision the client with the /128 of the >>> concentrator so that it can send traffic. >>>=20 >>> Here are the arguments for/against each that I've seen. I've tried = to >>> list all the ones that I've seen, so if I've missed any, then please = add >>> them: >>>=20 >>> DHCPv6 Option 64 >>> Pros >>> FQDN means that DNS round-robin load balancing could be used >>=20 >> RFC6334 specifies that only the first AAAA should be used. >=20 > [ian] Checking 6334 section 5 - "If any DNS response contains more = than > one IPv6 address, the B4 > system picks only one IPv6 address and uses it as a remote tunnel > endpoint for the interface being configured in the current message > exchange." >=20 > So you could use Option 64/DNS to provision multiple endpoints. You'd = need > another mechanism (e.g. The bfd model) to detect failure and take > advantage of it, though. >=20 >>=20 >>> Reuse of an existing option >>>=20 >>> Cons >>> Can not be extended with additional sub-options >>=20 >> the CE needs to deal with DNS TTL and the added complexity of having = the >> resulting "lifetime" of the >> default router be different than the lifetime of the = address/mechanism. >>=20 >> only one BR can be configured >>=20 >>> map-dhcp DMR >>> Pros >>> Option has an 'encapsulated options' field, so could be extended = with >>> additional functionality (although no additional functionality has >>> currently been proposed at this stage) >>>=20 >>> Cons >>> Only one DMR /128 can be provisioned to a client, so round robin = load >>> balancing can't be used >>=20 >> you can use anycast. >=20 > [ian] You can. But then, why do you need the list of addresses = suggested > below?=20 >=20 >>=20 >>> May conflict with the MAP-T (>> be out of scope for this discussion, but if we are following the >>> mechanisms described in Unified CPE so that a CPE can work out which = SW >>> mode to configure, then a dedicated MAP-T sub-option (not shared by = any >>> other mode) is needed. This is related to conversations that I've = had >>> around extending the Unified CPE model for other softwire = approaches. >>>=20 >>> My view: If there is additional functionality required in this = option, >>> over an above the provisioning of a /128 prefix for the = concentrator, >>> then the MAP DMR (limited to MAP-E) is the clear choice. However, if = no >>> such functionality is needed, then we should re-use Option 64. >>=20 >> does anyone know why a FQDN (with restrictions) was chosen for = DS-lite? >>=20 >> considerations: >> - MAP: should BR be inside or outside of the domain. if inside use an >> IPv4 address, if outside use an IPv6 address. >> (I believe we have agreed on outside, and for LW46 it must always be >> outside). >=20 > [ian] I think it's simpler just to use outside as a single approach. >=20 >> - should the CE have multiple BRs? and if so, what should it do = between >> them? load-balance? >> the choice in 6rd was to allow for multiple BRs, but not specify how >> multiple BRs could be used >>=20 >> my preference is for a simple list of IPv6 BR addresses. i.e. none of = the >> two above options. >=20 > [ian] As long as this is done as a separate option to the DMR, then I > think this would work. >=20 >>=20 >> cheers, >> Ole >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires From internet-drafts@ietf.org Wed May 29 03:47:02 2013 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 9093E21F930C; Wed, 29 May 2013 03:47:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gKPNRekOumRA; Wed, 29 May 2013 03:47:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF24C21F92FC; Wed, 29 May 2013 03:47:01 -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: 4.50 Message-ID: <20130529104701.24806.34722.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 03:47:01 -0700 Cc: softwires@ietf.org Subject: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-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, 29 May 2013 10:47:02 -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 : Mapping of Address and Port with Encapsulation (MAP) Author(s) : Ole Troan Wojciech Dec Xing Li Congxiao Bao Satoru Matsushima Tetsuya Murakami Tom Taylor Filename : draft-ietf-softwire-map-07.txt Pages : 30 Date : 2013-05-29 Abstract: This document describes a mechanism for transporting IPv4 packets across an IPv6 network using IP encapsulation, and a generic mechanism for mapping between IPv6 addresses and IPv4 addresses and transport layer ports. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-07 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-softwire-map-07 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com Wed May 29 12:40:15 2013 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 67B0E21F9818 for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 12:40:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.532 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.698, BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t-Tbk+O7xSYt for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 12:40:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cable.comcast.com (copdcavout01.cable.comcast.com [76.96.32.253]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E595421F9738 for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 12:40:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([24.40.56.115]) by copdcavout01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP id C7WM3M1.74117028; Wed, 29 May 2013 13:38:17 -0600 Received: from PACDCEXHUB04.cable.comcast.com (24.40.56.121) by PACDCEXHUB02.cable.comcast.com (24.40.56.115) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.318.1; Wed, 29 May 2013 15:40:02 -0400 Received: from PACDCEXMB05.cable.comcast.com ([169.254.7.207]) by pacdcexhub04.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::1532:d330:f9a5:c8a1%18]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Wed, 29 May 2013 15:40:02 -0400 From: "Lee, Yiu" To: Yong Cui , Softwires WG Thread-Topic: [Softwires] Call for adoption of draft-cai-softwire-6rd-mib-05 as wg draft Thread-Index: AQHOXKROrK14kAxan06ICB0TQ4Z8IQ== Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 19:40:00 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.4.130416 x-originating-ip: [24.40.55.70] Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="B_3452686800_1122281" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Softwires] Call for adoption of draft-cai-softwire-6rd-mib-05 as wg draft 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, 29 May 2013 19:40:15 -0000 --B_3452686800_1122281 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Support On 5/24/13 8:56 AM, "Yong Cui" wrote: >Hi all, > >This call is being initiated to determine whether there is WG >consensus towards adoption of draft-cai-softwire-6rd-mib-05 as a >softwire WG draft. > >Please state whether or not you're in favor of the adoption by replying >to this email. If you are not in favor, please also state your objections >in your response. > >The call will complete at midnight PDT on 2013-06-02. > > >Regards >Suresh & Yong > >_______________________________________________ >Softwires mailing list >Softwires@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires --B_3452686800_1122281 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 IENBAhEAzuhISIgzOwSitfbc2LN4WDAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoF0wIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFDA3 b6ZsA8oRC+cTBf7Cs2FVgLkIMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcN AQkFMQ8XDTEzMDUyOTE5Mzk1OVowDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQAEggEAB8fgaDe4C7MKMrvpfMeo QCN2ceH4MlNjpyQxKpPXIvD5Clb/Hm4zJJ2E0EKVbay/PgheD+IwoD3myeKPUB3AcyvZIodD goTab1nJEFOzSvu1lS8TOBxmwNmnbcl6wLAifsqzPZq+l2vWgtevIHlw36AvM3hLeDGxFtYF 0evOFlIHJFZnBvhi1q2zwBLM9jwB45XotnHwll0xbFKt8kkcJox5VqGr+w2sVxDH0T0QCLI/ u2Dk8evKbXW3b7eFsG2qBhZs60e5vYuhU034qC8Yk7fplzFpDwNuyN22xRWfEGuvIJkPQ3EO WjtlZry//mNpo+3CzgFB2F9d284X4jPAYw== --B_3452686800_1122281-- From yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com Wed May 29 12:40:50 2013 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 487F121F9738 for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 12:40:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.882 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.882 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.349, BAYES_00=-2.599, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id StwfaXINvfvM for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 12:40:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cable.comcast.com (copdcavout01.cable.comcast.com [76.96.32.253]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DD3721F9818 for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 12:40:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ([24.40.56.114]) by copdcavout01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP id C7WM3M1.74117248; Wed, 29 May 2013 13:38:58 -0600 Received: from PACDCEXHUB04.cable.comcast.com (24.40.56.121) by PACDCEXHUB01.cable.comcast.com (24.40.56.114) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.318.1; Wed, 29 May 2013 15:40:40 -0400 Received: from PACDCEXMB05.cable.comcast.com ([169.254.7.207]) by pacdcexhub04.cable.comcast.com ([fe80::1532:d330:f9a5:c8a1%18]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Wed, 29 May 2013 15:40:40 -0400 From: "Lee, Yiu" To: Softwires WG Thread-Topic: [Softwires] Call for adoption of draft-jiang-softwire-map-radius-04 as wg draft Thread-Index: AQHOXKRmR0rGU9hpGUKUUxVVUA/wxg== Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 19:40:39 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <519EE806.9080506@ericsson.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.4.130416 x-originating-ip: [24.40.55.70] Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="B_3452686839_1088062" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Softwires] Call for adoption of draft-jiang-softwire-map-radius-04 as wg draft 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, 29 May 2013 19:40:50 -0000 --B_3452686839_1088062 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Support On 5/24/13 12:09 AM, "Suresh Krishnan" wrote: >Hi all, > This call is being initiated to determine whether there is WG >consensus towards adoption of draft-jiang-softwire-map-radius-04 as a >softwire WG draft. Please state whether or not you're in favor of the >adoption by replying to this email. If you are not in favor, please also >state your objections in your response. The call will complete at >midnight PDT on 2013-06-02. > >Regards >Suresh & Yong > > > >_______________________________________________ >Softwires mailing list >Softwires@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires --B_3452686839_1088062 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 IENBAhEAzuhISIgzOwSitfbc2LN4WDAJBgUrDgMCGgUAoF0wIwYJKoZIhvcNAQkEMRYEFL+p Md0pvnIR2W6F4Ojm8kgIHJDcMBgGCSqGSIb3DQEJAzELBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHAYJKoZIhvcN AQkFMQ8XDTEzMDUyOTE5NDAzOFowDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQAEggEATTiMKI6zvVmW6VZvMDtH b835TwYy/94n82M3MCyZS7Yd9kCSCE012IvJXhWM3agspnXvmFbW5kb50/UIxFYqCldeTtjJ k2ftR8vvhtk+yGZBq1wm91t+ecHTdITrRbv2DyJKoBrjtnHapyHQl0K5crTbYFa7Yd8pvYLo MuHxG4zx9lwpLkULYdTWvy4KsP7cfUyzsbZTxIj4lZRd+TzKqa0NrsQf9ahW1Z6wFF8NGwKa WKiDUjsvxAezrusLMS/77PvfTjypXgLSQ6Cn/x/F9crK5Mp2NiuWSaGTzGzBtQkKOt2347ZC KWCUh9jFMN/gkQXng+xCQfXQm2LsyLFiNg== --B_3452686839_1088062-- From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu May 30 06:01:13 2013 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 4563021F9260; Thu, 30 May 2013 06:01:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.499 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.101, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 463aYavDkzVX; Thu, 30 May 2013 06:01:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2A3621F9003; Thu, 30 May 2013 06:01:12 -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: 4.50 Message-ID: <20130530130112.25301.52731.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 06:01:12 -0700 Cc: softwires@ietf.org Subject: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe-01.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, 30 May 2013 13:01:13 -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 : Unified IPv4-in-IPv6 Softwire CPE Author(s) : Mohamed Boucadair Ian Farrer Simon Perreault Senthil Sivakumar Filename : draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe-01.txt Pages : 15 Date : 2013-05-30 Abstract: Transporting IPv4 packets encapsulated in IPv6 is a common solution to the problem of IPv4 service continuity over IPv6-only provider networks. A number of differing functional approaches have been developed for this, each having their own specific characteristics. As these approaches share a similar functional architecture and use the same data plane mechanisms, this memo describes a specification whereby a single CPE can interwork with all of the standardized and proposed approaches to providing encapsulated IPv4 in IPv6 services. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-softwire-unified-cpe-01 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From phdgang@gmail.com Thu May 30 09:52:33 2013 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 924B021F8D70 for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 09:52:33 -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 ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1ijbOPxesPC3 for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 09:52:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qa0-x236.google.com (mail-qa0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9CD521F89C3 for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 09:52:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qa0-f54.google.com with SMTP id hu16so399936qab.6 for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 09:52:32 -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=Y2Q7lckiDaKtAZZUxzteOU0S9m0q7UvA5G7lfI6bLIc=; b=ae60bBqvpDSLiy7zo4pTcOBmVi/wbWz5cfzpOhGs4hZi8xCo/xXoeFMu9UTWBz6CYK y8xK7S8xT4LTXt+1paJhgn51vJQuesjlDV3CAa4xSfTUqQ8WPSt+LmUIt2dKWxiqgR+S uu0jEfhEPklBkBoBKlwLmmKf2UGDTY2aNjupMYcJhRlZcwcTO+kRxN09gYpvnB5mRLBA fEmcIHa3X3JJLqt3V+A7vffGHjhvIBw+hI6RrkS5xokInnQAf/j3wsUbuAgvJ93C6ISJ h7MMMqZpl0u6rd4OXw0Lb1bEtMDthAYJZ5EZjyYrkI0pWoZ7kTL+119MgC/0FbLCKzm/ RV0Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.224.163.129 with SMTP id a1mr7312864qay.1.1369932752336; Thu, 30 May 2013 09:52:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.61.67 with HTTP; Thu, 30 May 2013 09:52:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <519EE806.9080506@ericsson.com> References: <519EE806.9080506@ericsson.com> Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 00:52:32 +0800 Message-ID: From: GangChen To: Suresh Krishnan Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Softwires WG , Yong Cui Subject: Re: [Softwires] Call for adoption of draft-jiang-softwire-map-radius-04 as wg draft X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 30 May 2013 16:52:33 -0000 Support This interactive radius support for MAP is useful when it comes to real deployment. ISPs are likely use radius to authorize and manage MAP subscribers. BRs Gang 2013/5/24, Suresh Krishnan : > Hi all, > This call is being initiated to determine whether there is WG > consensus towards adoption of draft-jiang-softwire-map-radius-04 as a > softwire WG draft. Please state whether or not you're in favor of the > adoption by replying to this email. If you are not in favor, please also > state your objections in your response. The call will complete at > midnight PDT on 2013-06-02. > > Regards > Suresh & Yong > > > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > From bingxuere@gmail.com Thu May 30 19:07:15 2013 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 3F77421F934B for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 19:07:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BAOrQIYKEQ2G for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 19:07:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ve0-x22f.google.com (mail-ve0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4783221F901A for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 19:07:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ve0-f175.google.com with SMTP id da11so735242veb.34 for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 19:07:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=Rq7MSvbNnyhhjX0yVYQs31N+TgWI7KINs2NzMpUkpsI=; b=Vvq+Gr+8GQ/8iG9beYfgaWAFS2nx9b+X5xlpDuFIyKroTT+cbTsmtSH8j3YrgYL32J 9h9oEaAVdyBeAD5UTb+yG+TeszKEZg6PwVuGPPKNtVUmReclHYxczKV9i1PdJgvFeCXf 0Cyr2d1bouE+UERDCy2aEfcufv28nH3+7IKkNxgOPJTJHF6blq9EisIuJ7G+q1TU8fHH 6XqJYR55vavCnGL7LMESzPjtfqmzhGGAnLNfj0erVuoQVr6mRe1zvUUUSgVPDrx71wlv lucvKZ60mfspb+2pve36wFCOQNvbr7oN5zxLWv8GuAltC4Em18Zumzl5DN7JgXgncaUq FEeQ== X-Received: by 10.52.34.114 with SMTP id y18mr6845418vdi.56.1369966033640; Thu, 30 May 2013 19:07:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.115.3 with HTTP; Thu, 30 May 2013 19:06:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <519EE806.9080506@ericsson.com> From: Qiong Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 10:06:33 +0800 Message-ID: To: GangChen Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3079bfd6ca555e04ddfa125d Cc: Softwires WG , Yong Cui Subject: Re: [Softwires] Call for adoption of draft-jiang-softwire-map-radius-04 as wg draft 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, 31 May 2013 02:07:15 -0000 --20cf3079bfd6ca555e04ddfa125d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 +1 support. Thanks! Best wishes Qiong On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 12:52 AM, GangChen wrote: > Support > This interactive radius support for MAP is useful when it comes to > real deployment. ISPs are likely use radius to authorize and manage > MAP subscribers. > > BRs > > Gang > > 2013/5/24, Suresh Krishnan : > > Hi all, > > This call is being initiated to determine whether there is WG > > consensus towards adoption of draft-jiang-softwire-map-radius-04 as a > > softwire WG draft. Please state whether or not you're in favor of the > > adoption by replying to this email. If you are not in favor, please also > > state your objections in your response. The call will complete at > > midnight PDT on 2013-06-02. > > > > Regards > > Suresh & Yong > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Softwires mailing list > > Softwires@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > -- ============================================== Qiong Sun China Telecom Beijing Research Institude Open source code: lightweight 4over6: *http://sourceforge.net/projects/laft6/* PCP-natcoord:* http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcpportsetdemo/ * =============================================== --20cf3079bfd6ca555e04ddfa125d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
+1 support. Thanks!

Best wi= shes
Qiong


On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 12:52 AM, GangChen <phdgang@gma= il.com> wrote:
Support
This interactive radius support for MAP is useful when it comes to
real deployment. ISPs are likely use radius to authorize and manage
MAP subscribers.

BRs

Gang

2013/5/24, Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>:
> Hi all,
> =C2=A0 This call is being initiated to determine whether there is WG > consensus towards adoption of draft-jiang-softwire-map-radius-04 as a<= br> > softwire WG draft. Please state whether or not you're in favor of = the
> adoption by replying to this email. If you are not in favor, please al= so
> state your objections in your response. The call will complete at
> midnight PDT on 2013-06-02.
>
> Regards
> Suresh & Yong
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> Softwires@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires



--
= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Qiong Su= n
China Telecom Beijing Research Institude


Open source code:<= br>lightweight 4over6: http://sourceforge.net/projects/laft6/
PCP-natcoord: http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcpportsetdemo/
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
--20cf3079bfd6ca555e04ddfa125d-- From bingxuere@gmail.com Thu May 30 19:07:55 2013 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 37BC021F967F for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 19:07:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BLgwm3OZJPYh for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 19:07:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vb0-x229.google.com (mail-vb0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A923B21F9678 for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 19:07:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vb0-f41.google.com with SMTP id p14so680294vbm.28 for ; Thu, 30 May 2013 19:07:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=ho3mxzSPN78mN4swr5T/ImYCdR0QJ45MImSXKTIQ8g4=; b=lG0dGxnfm5y1eyoMtsMltb8Vt+YJXr/n8GdSN+lvNaUXd1tTK0r5q11QQG3NTGdqJm Pze6LcwMgEsyHIdRWKi8EL0/dNViDkKj2esPwlTT79tT4qyBCp5cxANKRCpHv2Pbtn22 5cAkEESaNEWmR6nu2U6iJtZ4D+ygecIqwVObuUnvXPFTCFSgjjh2yQHMB9+ki445CP1Z tD89p3AwX9ANP0ugdada+565gzhq7p5ruiM/uenj8YvTRaFlvxPMbTQN48Q6d5VibjSc ENjw/vnN3wrmxyf+4VZFDqe+r0aTeD92JVDINsUM9fPyBU/emQGSuckAsPTlRPYc6KwW VmRA== X-Received: by 10.220.78.212 with SMTP id m20mr8132013vck.46.1369966071979; Thu, 30 May 2013 19:07:51 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.115.3 with HTTP; Thu, 30 May 2013 19:07:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <519EE777.2040407@ericsson.com> References: <519EE777.2040407@ericsson.com> From: Qiong Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 10:07:11 +0800 Message-ID: To: Suresh Krishnan Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b343d56134f1b04ddfa15a2 Cc: Softwires WG , Yong Cui Subject: Re: [Softwires] Call for adoption of draft-fu-softwire-map-mib-05 as wg draft 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, 31 May 2013 02:07:55 -0000 --047d7b343d56134f1b04ddfa15a2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Support to move forward. Thanks! Best wishes Qiong On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Suresh Krishnan < suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> wrote: > Hi all, > This call is being initiated to determine whether there is WG > consensus towards adoption of draft-fu-softwire-map-mib-05 as a softwire > WG draft. Please state whether or not you're in favor of the adoption by > replying to this email. If you are not in favor, please also state your > objections in your response. The call will complete at midnight PDT on > 2013-06-02. > > Regards > Suresh & Yong > > > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > -- ============================================== Qiong Sun China Telecom Beijing Research Institude Open source code: lightweight 4over6: *http://sourceforge.net/projects/laft6/* PCP-natcoord:* http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcpportsetdemo/ * =============================================== --047d7b343d56134f1b04ddfa15a2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Support to move forward. Thanks!

= Best wishes
Qiong

On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:07 PM, Suresh Kr= ishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> wrote:
Hi all,
=C2=A0 This call is being initiated to determine whether there is WG
consensus towards adoption of draft-fu-softwire-map-mib-05 as a softwire WG draft. Please state whether or not you're in favor of the adoption b= y
replying to this email. If you are not in favor, please also state your
objections in your response. The call will complete at midnight PDT on
2013-06-02.

Regards
Suresh & Yong



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



--
=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Qiong Sun
China T= elecom Beijing Research Institude


Open source code:
lightweig= ht 4over6: http://sourceforge.net/projects/laft6/
PCP-natcoord: http://sourceforge.net/projects/pcpportsetdemo/
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
--047d7b343d56134f1b04ddfa15a2-- From jiangsheng@huawei.com Fri May 31 02:23:57 2013 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 670A021F8609 for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 02:23:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.468 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.468 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.131, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id URmfTIDLAEii for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 02:23:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B30DC21F86C4 for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 02:23:52 -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 ATJ39180; Fri, 31 May 2013 09:23:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Fri, 31 May 2013 10:23:11 +0100 Received: from nkgeml409-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.40) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Fri, 31 May 2013 17:23:47 +0800 Received: from NKGEML512-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.3]) by nkgeml409-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.40]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Fri, 31 May 2013 17:23:42 +0800 From: Sheng Jiang To: Suresh Krishnan Thread-Topic: [Softwires] Call for adoption of draft-fu-softwire-map-mib-05 as wg draft Thread-Index: AQHOWrGH0lYDY4aPaUarCPYu4zMeDJkfCirQ Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 09:23:41 +0000 Message-ID: <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B923AC99DAF@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> References: <519EE777.2040407@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.98.145] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Cc: Softwires WG , Yong Cui Subject: Re: [Softwires] Call for adoption of draft-fu-softwire-map-mib-05 as wg draft 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, 31 May 2013 09:23:57 -0000 U3VwcG9ydCB0aGUgYWRvcHRpb24gYXMgY29hdXRob3IuIFRoZSBNSUIgb2YgbWFwIGlzIGhlbHBm dWwgZm9yIHVzIHZlbmRvcnMuIFBhcnRpY3VsYXJseSB3aGVuIHRoZXJlIGFyZSBtdWx0aXBsZSBN QVAgQlJzIGZyb20gZGlmZmVyZW50IHZlbmRvcnMsIHRoZSBzdGFuZGFyZCBNQVAgTUlCIG1ha2Vz IHRoZW0gYmUgYWJsZSB0byBpbnRlcm9wZXJhdGlvbiB3aXRoIHVuaXZlcnNhbCBtYW5hZ2VtZW50 Lg0KDQpDaGVlcnMsDQoNClNoZW5nDQoNCj4tLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KPkZy b206IHNvZnR3aXJlcy1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnIFttYWlsdG86c29mdHdpcmVzLWJvdW5jZXNA aWV0Zi5vcmddIE9uDQo+QmVoYWxmIE9mIFFpIFN1bg0KPlNlbnQ6IE1vbmRheSwgTWF5IDI3LCAy MDEzIDQ6MDMgUE0NCj5UbzogU3VyZXNoIEtyaXNobmFuDQo+Q2M6IFNvZnR3aXJlcyBXRzsgWW9u ZyBDdWkNCj5TdWJqZWN0OiBSZTogW1NvZnR3aXJlc10gQ2FsbCBmb3IgYWRvcHRpb24gb2YgZHJh ZnQtZnUtc29mdHdpcmUtbWFwLW1pYi0wNSBhcw0KPndnIGRyYWZ0DQo+DQo+c3VwcG9ydC4NCj4N Cj5CZXN0IFJlZ2FyZHMsDQo+UWkNCj4NCj4NCj5PbiAyMDEzLTUtMjQsIGF0IOS4i+WNiDEyOjA3 LCBTdXJlc2ggS3Jpc2huYW4gd3JvdGU6DQo+DQo+PiBIaSBhbGwsDQo+PiAgVGhpcyBjYWxsIGlz IGJlaW5nIGluaXRpYXRlZCB0byBkZXRlcm1pbmUgd2hldGhlciB0aGVyZSBpcyBXRw0KPj4gY29u c2Vuc3VzIHRvd2FyZHMgYWRvcHRpb24gb2YgZHJhZnQtZnUtc29mdHdpcmUtbWFwLW1pYi0wNSBh cyBhIHNvZnR3aXJlDQo+PiBXRyBkcmFmdC4gUGxlYXNlIHN0YXRlIHdoZXRoZXIgb3Igbm90IHlv dSdyZSBpbiBmYXZvciBvZiB0aGUgYWRvcHRpb24gYnkNCj4+IHJlcGx5aW5nIHRvIHRoaXMgZW1h aWwuIElmIHlvdSBhcmUgbm90IGluIGZhdm9yLCBwbGVhc2UgYWxzbyBzdGF0ZSB5b3VyDQo+PiBv YmplY3Rpb25zIGluIHlvdXIgcmVzcG9uc2UuIFRoZSBjYWxsIHdpbGwgY29tcGxldGUgYXQgbWlk bmlnaHQgUERUIG9uDQo+PiAyMDEzLTA2LTAyLg0KPj4NCj4+IFJlZ2FyZHMNCj4+IFN1cmVzaCAm IFlvbmcNCj4+DQo+Pg0KPj4NCj4+IF9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fDQo+PiBTb2Z0d2lyZXMgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQo+PiBTb2Z0d2lyZXNAaWV0 Zi5vcmcNCj4+IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vc29mdHdpcmVz DQo+DQo+X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCj5T b2Z0d2lyZXMgbWFpbGluZyBsaXN0DQo+U29mdHdpcmVzQGlldGYub3JnDQo+aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cu aWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9zb2Z0d2lyZXMNCg== From leo.liubing@huawei.com Fri May 31 02:52:38 2013 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 12AB221F96E8 for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 02:52:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZnmCKLhoKS8O for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 02:52:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F367521F9433 for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 02:52:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id ARZ03634; Fri, 31 May 2013 09:52:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Fri, 31 May 2013 10:51:33 +0100 Received: from NKGEML410-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.41) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Fri, 31 May 2013 17:52:09 +0800 Received: from NKGEML506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.240]) by nkgeml410-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.41]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Fri, 31 May 2013 17:51:58 +0800 From: "Liubing (Leo)" To: Sheng Jiang , Suresh Krishnan Thread-Topic: [Softwires] Call for adoption of draft-fu-softwire-map-mib-05 as wg draft Thread-Index: AQHOXeF9WxjKumImpEGOTxLDXSCM4ZkfCQ2Q Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 09:51:57 +0000 Message-ID: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D72AC01@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> References: <519EE777.2040407@ericsson.com> <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B923AC99DAF@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B923AC99DAF@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com> Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.98.161] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Cc: Softwires WG , Yong Cui Subject: Re: [Softwires] Call for adoption of draft-fu-softwire-map-mib-05 as wg draft 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, 31 May 2013 09:52:38 -0000 KzENCg0KQWxzbyBzdXBwb3J0IGFzIGEgY28tYXV0aG9yLCB0byBzdXBwbGVtZW50IFNoZW5nJ3Mg cG9pbnQgYSBsaXR0bGUgYml0OiANCnRoZSBNQVAgcnVsZXMgYXJlIGNyaXRpY2FsIGluZm9ybWF0 aW9uIGluIGEgTUFQIHN5c3RlbSAoYW5kIHByb2JhYmx5IHRoZSBvbmx5IE1BUC1zcGVjaWZpYyBk YXRhIHRoYXQgbmVlZCB0byBiZSBtYW5hZ2VkIGluIHRoZSBzdGF0ZWxlc3Mgc29sdXRpb24pLiBJ IGJlbGlldmUgdGhlIG9wZXJhdG9ycyB3b3VsZCBsaWtlIHRvIG1hbmFnZSB0aGVzZSBkYXRhIHRo cm91Z2ggc3RhbmRhcmRpemVkIFNOTVAgaW50ZXJmYWNlLiBBbmQgc2luY2UgdGhlIHJ1bGVzIGFy ZSBkaWZmZXJlbnQgd2l0aCBvdGhlciBkYXRhIHN0cnVjdHVyZSB3ZSd2ZSBhbHJlYWR5IGhhZCBp biBvdGhlciBNSUJzLCBpdCBpcyBuZWNlc3NhcnkgdG8gaGF2ZSBhIGRlZGljYXRlZCBNSUIgZGVm aW5pdGlvbi4NCg0KUmVnYXJkcywNCkJpbmcNCg0KPiAtLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0t LQ0KPiBGcm9tOiBzb2Z0d2lyZXMtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRmLm9yZyBbbWFpbHRvOnNvZnR3aXJlcy1i b3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnXSBPbg0KPiBCZWhhbGYgT2YgU2hlbmcgSmlhbmcNCj4gU2VudDogRnJp ZGF5LCBNYXkgMzEsIDIwMTMgNToyNCBQTQ0KPiBUbzogU3VyZXNoIEtyaXNobmFuDQo+IENjOiBT b2Z0d2lyZXMgV0c7IFlvbmcgQ3VpDQo+IFN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBbU29mdHdpcmVzXSBDYWxsIGZv ciBhZG9wdGlvbiBvZiBkcmFmdC1mdS1zb2Z0d2lyZS1tYXAtbWliLTA1IGFzDQo+IHdnIGRyYWZ0 DQo+IA0KPiBTdXBwb3J0IHRoZSBhZG9wdGlvbiBhcyBjb2F1dGhvci4gVGhlIE1JQiBvZiBtYXAg aXMgaGVscGZ1bCBmb3IgdXMgdmVuZG9ycy4NCj4gUGFydGljdWxhcmx5IHdoZW4gdGhlcmUgYXJl IG11bHRpcGxlIE1BUCBCUnMgZnJvbSBkaWZmZXJlbnQgdmVuZG9ycywgdGhlDQo+IHN0YW5kYXJk IE1BUCBNSUIgbWFrZXMgdGhlbSBiZSBhYmxlIHRvIGludGVyb3BlcmF0aW9uIHdpdGggdW5pdmVy c2FsDQo+IG1hbmFnZW1lbnQuDQo+IA0KPiBDaGVlcnMsDQo+IA0KPiBTaGVuZw0KPiANCj4gPi0t LS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0tDQo+ID5Gcm9tOiBzb2Z0d2lyZXMtYm91bmNlc0BpZXRm Lm9yZyBbbWFpbHRvOnNvZnR3aXJlcy1ib3VuY2VzQGlldGYub3JnXSBPbg0KPiA+QmVoYWxmIE9m IFFpIFN1bg0KPiA+U2VudDogTW9uZGF5LCBNYXkgMjcsIDIwMTMgNDowMyBQTQ0KPiA+VG86IFN1 cmVzaCBLcmlzaG5hbg0KPiA+Q2M6IFNvZnR3aXJlcyBXRzsgWW9uZyBDdWkNCj4gPlN1YmplY3Q6 IFJlOiBbU29mdHdpcmVzXSBDYWxsIGZvciBhZG9wdGlvbiBvZiBkcmFmdC1mdS1zb2Z0d2lyZS1t YXAtbWliLTA1DQo+IGFzDQo+ID53ZyBkcmFmdA0KPiA+DQo+ID5zdXBwb3J0Lg0KPiA+DQo+ID5C ZXN0IFJlZ2FyZHMsDQo+ID5RaQ0KPiA+DQo+ID4NCj4gPk9uIDIwMTMtNS0yNCwgYXQg5LiL5Y2I MTI6MDcsIFN1cmVzaCBLcmlzaG5hbiB3cm90ZToNCj4gPg0KPiA+PiBIaSBhbGwsDQo+ID4+ICBU aGlzIGNhbGwgaXMgYmVpbmcgaW5pdGlhdGVkIHRvIGRldGVybWluZSB3aGV0aGVyIHRoZXJlIGlz IFdHDQo+ID4+IGNvbnNlbnN1cyB0b3dhcmRzIGFkb3B0aW9uIG9mIGRyYWZ0LWZ1LXNvZnR3aXJl LW1hcC1taWItMDUgYXMgYQ0KPiBzb2Z0d2lyZQ0KPiA+PiBXRyBkcmFmdC4gUGxlYXNlIHN0YXRl IHdoZXRoZXIgb3Igbm90IHlvdSdyZSBpbiBmYXZvciBvZiB0aGUgYWRvcHRpb24gYnkNCj4gPj4g cmVwbHlpbmcgdG8gdGhpcyBlbWFpbC4gSWYgeW91IGFyZSBub3QgaW4gZmF2b3IsIHBsZWFzZSBh bHNvIHN0YXRlIHlvdXINCj4gPj4gb2JqZWN0aW9ucyBpbiB5b3VyIHJlc3BvbnNlLiBUaGUgY2Fs bCB3aWxsIGNvbXBsZXRlIGF0IG1pZG5pZ2h0IFBEVCBvbg0KPiA+PiAyMDEzLTA2LTAyLg0KPiA+ Pg0KPiA+PiBSZWdhcmRzDQo+ID4+IFN1cmVzaCAmIFlvbmcNCj4gPj4NCj4gPj4NCj4gPj4NCj4g Pj4gX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCj4gPj4g U29mdHdpcmVzIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KPiA+PiBTb2Z0d2lyZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4gPj4gaHR0 cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9zb2Z0d2lyZXMNCj4gPg0KPiA+X19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCj4gPlNvZnR3aXJl cyBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QNCj4gPlNvZnR3aXJlc0BpZXRmLm9yZw0KPiA+aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0 Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9zb2Z0d2lyZXMNCj4gX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18NCj4gU29mdHdpcmVzIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdA0KPiBT b2Z0d2lyZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmcNCj4gaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5m by9zb2Z0d2lyZXMNCg== From leo.liubing@huawei.com Fri May 31 03:04:41 2013 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 41DB521F8900 for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 03:04:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.949 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4no2eXRrVWZU for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 03:04:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FCDA21F8EB1 for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 03:04:36 -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 ATJ42929; Fri, 31 May 2013 10:04:35 +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 14.1.323.7; Fri, 31 May 2013 11:03:56 +0100 Received: from NKGEML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.37) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Fri, 31 May 2013 11:04:32 +0100 Received: from NKGEML506-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.240]) by nkgeml406-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.37]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Fri, 31 May 2013 18:04:26 +0800 From: "Liubing (Leo)" To: GangChen , Suresh Krishnan Thread-Topic: [Softwires] Call for adoption of draft-jiang-softwire-map-radius-04 as wg draft Thread-Index: AQHOXVYaTP09vniEA0OA2J0oXxLCLpkfBoDw Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 10:04:25 +0000 Message-ID: <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F453D72AC1F@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> References: <519EE806.9080506@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.98.161] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Cc: Softwires WG , Yong Cui Subject: Re: [Softwires] Call for adoption of draft-jiang-softwire-map-radius-04 as wg draft 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, 31 May 2013 10:04:41 -0000 +1 Specifically agree on this point as a co-author. The motivation of this draft was based on the Gang said common deployment s= chema in real production networks, in which user configuration information = is usually managed by AAA. For example, in fixed broadband networks, the MAP configuration information= might most probably stored in AAA servers. And the MAP DHCP configuration = provisioning are most probably through BNG. So the MAP radius attributes ar= e needed to propagate the information from AAA servers to BNGs, so that the= BNG could form correspondent MAP DHCP options to the CEs. B.R. Bing > -----Original Message----- > From: softwires-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of GangChen > Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 12:53 AM > To: Suresh Krishnan > Cc: Softwires WG; Yong Cui > Subject: Re: [Softwires] Call for adoption of > draft-jiang-softwire-map-radius-04 as wg draft >=20 > Support > This interactive radius support for MAP is useful when it comes to > real deployment. ISPs are likely use radius to authorize and manage > MAP subscribers. >=20 > BRs >=20 > Gang >=20 > 2013/5/24, Suresh Krishnan : > > Hi all, > > This call is being initiated to determine whether there is WG > > consensus towards adoption of draft-jiang-softwire-map-radius-04 as a > > softwire WG draft. Please state whether or not you're in favor of the > > adoption by replying to this email. If you are not in favor, please als= o > > state your objections in your response. The call will complete at > > midnight PDT on 2013-06-02. > > > > Regards > > Suresh & Yong > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Softwires mailing list > > Softwires@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires