From nobody Tue Apr 1 00:58:40 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F9801A080D; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 00:58:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id au0D2uSDhEcB; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 00:58:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B58B71A0127; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 00:58:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.2.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140401075838.4622.71003.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 00:58:38 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/UB-g9-r0q1QxJ8vs5Ip7d1yzx4M Cc: softwires@ietf.org Subject: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-4rd-08.txt X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 07:58:40 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Softwires Working Group of the IETF. Title : IPv4 Residual Deployment via IPv6 - a Stateless Solution (4rd) Authors : Remi Despres Sheng Jiang Reinaldo Penno Yiu Lee Gang Chen Maoke Chen Filename : draft-ietf-softwire-4rd-08.txt Pages : 39 Date : 2014-04-01 Abstract: The 4rd automatic tunneling mechanism makes IPv4 Residual Deployment possible via IPv6 networks without maintaining for this per-customer states in 4rd-capable nodes (reverse of the IPv6 Rapid Deployment of 6rd). To cope with the IPv4 address shortage, customer sites can be assigned shared public IPv4 addresses with restricted port sets. 4rd can also support the scenarios that customer sites are assigned full public IPv4 addresses or a set of public IPv4 addresses. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-4rd/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-4rd-08 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-softwire-4rd-08 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Tue Apr 1 01:55:28 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AF3B1A0886 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 01:55:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M4WYVPR9HSfD for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 01:55:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pd0-x235.google.com (mail-pd0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5C331A7030 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 01:55:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pd0-f181.google.com with SMTP id p10so9141181pdj.26 for ; Tue, 01 Apr 2014 01:55:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=zCCpQMj2MfW2G3Pc+5PC8GMAGpi7tXbdnpT1HI2p+34=; b=DOPbi9iYOFHEItCT/sG7G/HKe6v2mLSpI/HgLH6amh0Bb1L4h99q/hdbtz/xoVl0L6 3lRkLnE6STQvdldaLElqXa0/CEfS56mna/64KmXER3dL95sgmtd+l7I18a8gZKk4OOJb buLtFKAl58H0cAQk7VLyI61K6ne8zYbYI2Yqztzoga9vacVTpkOk9jiA2Ki5i8SgUiE8 eZpvlegrQ5eNFTb8D8/DqLpCdUaRpIIweW6rYFeJHEmhSlOuEAsS0WT1cADG7PfebRcE qhIdDIqW8fQqVrCExJN6sa2k4pwO07dy5VF4hi/CT6vl6MfwUlpXtODgch1pcKgumG7n 1ASQ== X-Received: by 10.66.122.36 with SMTP id lp4mr30037596pab.82.1396342519263; Tue, 01 Apr 2014 01:55:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.3.204] (li405-234.members.linode.com. [106.187.53.234]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id vw9sm48491038pbc.68.2014.04.01.01.55.16 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 01 Apr 2014 01:55:18 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_3F80F770-0C38-4A17-B0BC-32E164809CFE" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\)) From: Qi Sun In-Reply-To: Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 16:55:12 +0800 Message-Id: <8BBD3DDE-FEED-4E58-B037-07F1470E98C4@gmail.com> References: <20140318142310.161560@gmx.com> To: Softwires-wg X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/VhFsUW4S6w-l-bT3_QkYXXWaSSw Cc: draft-ietf-softwire-map@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [Softwires] Proposed text that describes lw4o6 and map-e X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2014 08:55:26 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_3F80F770-0C38-4A17-B0BC-32E164809CFE Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Hi all,=20 According to the Softwire session in London, there would be a crossing = reference between map and lw4o6 with the same description text. Now that = the text has been agreed by the two sides and added to the lw4o6 draft, = I would propose to include the following into the Introduction section = of map draft: MAP offers the capability of independence between IPv6=20 subnet prefix and IPv4 address or, alternatively, allows for a reduction of the amount of centralized state using rules to express IPv4/IPv6 address mappings. This introduces an algorithmic relationship between the IPv6 subnet and IPv4 address. This relationship also allows the option of direct, meshed connectivity between users. [I.D.ietf-softwire-lw4over6] is a solution designed=20 specifically for complete independence between IPv6 subnet prefix=20 and IPv4 address with or without IPv4 address sharing. This is=20 accomplished by maintaining state for each softwire (per-subscriber = state)=20 in the central lwAFTR and a hub-and-spoke forwarding architecture.=20 Could the Editors of MAP, as well as the WG, check with the text? = Thanks! Best Regards, Qi On Mar 18, 2014, at 11:44 PM, Wojciech Dec wrote: > Agreed. >=20 > Cheers, > Wojciech. >=20 >=20 > On 18 March 2014 15:59, wrote: > Hi Woj, >=20 > Removing the modal verb has left us with a rather hefty sentence: >=20 > =85..allows for the reduction of the amount of centralised state by = means of rules expressing an algorithmic address mapping relationship = between the IPv6 subnet prefix and IPv4 address. >=20 > It would be clearer as two: >=20 > =85.allows for a reduction of the amount of centralised state using = rules to express IPv4/IPv6 address mappings. This introduces an = algorithmic relationship between the IPv6 subnet and IPv4 address.=20 >=20 > Cheers, > Ian >=20 > From: Wojciech Dec > Date: Tuesday, 18 March 2014 15:37 > To: ian Farrer > Cc: Softwires-wg WG >=20 > Subject: Re: [Softwires] Proposed text that describes lw4o6 and map-e >=20 > Hi Ian, >=20 > indeed. Would however prefer to remove the modal verb however (which = leads to a few changes): >=20 > Lightweight 4over6 is a solution designed specifically for complete = independence between IPv6 subnet prefix and IPv4 address with or without = IPv4 address sharing. > This is accomplished by maintaining state for each softwire = (per-subscriber state) in the central lwAFTR and a hub-and-spoke = forwarding architecture. [I-D.ietf-softwire-map] also offers these = capabilities or, alternatively, allows for the reduction of the amount = of centralised state by means of rules expressing an algorithmic address = mapping relationship between the IPv6 subnet prefix and IPv4 address. = This relationship also allows the option of direct, meshed connectivity = between users. >=20 > Cheers, > Wojciech. >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires --Apple-Mail=_3F80F770-0C38-4A17-B0BC-32E164809CFE Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Hi = all, 

According to the Softwire session in = London, there would be a crossing reference between map and lw4o6 with = the same description text. Now that the text has been agreed by the two = sides and added to the lw4o6 draft, I would propose to include the = following into the Introduction section of map = draft:

  MAP offers the capability of independence = between IPv6 
  subnet prefix and IPv4 address or, = alternatively, allows for a
  reduction of the amount of centralized state = using rules to express
  IPv4/IPv6 address mappings.  This = introduces an algorithmic
  relationship between the IPv6 subnet and = IPv4 address.  This
  relationship also allows the option of = direct, meshed connectivity
  between users. [I.D.ietf-softwire-lw4over6] = is a solution designed 
  specifically for = complete independence between IPv6 subnet = prefix 
  and IPv4 address with or without IPv4 address = sharing.  This is 
  accomplished by maintaining state for = each softwire (per-subscriber state) 
  in the central lwAFTR and a = hub-and-spoke forwarding = architecture. 

Could the = Editors of MAP, as well as the WG, check with the text? = Thanks!

Best = Regards,
Qi

On Mar 18, 2014, at 11:44 = PM, Wojciech Dec <wdec.ietf@gmail.com> = wrote:

Agreed.

Cheers,
Wojciech.
<= /div>


On 18 = March 2014 15:59, <ian.farrer@telekom.de> wrote:
Hi = Woj,

Removing the modal verb has left us with a rather hefty = sentence:

=85..allows for the = reduction of the amount of centralised state by means of rules = expressing an algorithmic = address mapping relationship between the IPv6 subnet prefix and IPv4 = address.

<= div>It would be clearer as two:

=85.allows for = a reduction of the amount of centralised state using rules to express = IPv4/IPv6 address mappings. This introduces an algorithmic relationship = between the IPv6 subnet and IPv4 address. 

Cheers,
Ian

From: Wojciech Dec <wdec.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, 18 March 2014 = 15:37
To: ian Farrer <ianfarrer@gmx.com>
Cc: Softwires-wg WG <softwires@ietf.org>

Subject: = Re: [Softwires] Proposed text that describes lw4o6 and = map-e

Hi Ian,

indeed. Would however prefer to remove the modal verb however (which = leads to a few changes):

Lightweight 4over6 is a solution designed = specifically for complete independence between IPv6 subnet prefix and = IPv4 address with or without IPv4 address sharing.
This is accomplished by maintaining state for each softwire = (per-subscriber state) in the central lwAFTR and a hub-and-spoke = forwarding architecture.  [I-D.ietf-softwire-map] also offers these = capabilities or, alternatively, allows for the reduction of the amount of centralised state by means of rules expressing an = algorithmic address mapping relationship = between the IPv6 subnet prefix and IPv4 address. This relationship also = allows the option of direct, meshed connectivity between = users.

Cheers,
Wojciech.


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

= = --Apple-Mail=_3F80F770-0C38-4A17-B0BC-32E164809CFE-- From nobody Fri Apr 4 06:34:49 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4E911A01A7 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 06:34:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.56 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.56 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NORMAL_HTTP_TO_IP=0.001, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.886, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.922, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OK_XtRb_x--B for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 06:34:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x230.google.com (mail-wi0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CD631A019F for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 06:34:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-wi0-f176.google.com with SMTP id r20so1287184wiv.3 for ; Fri, 04 Apr 2014 06:34:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=qvgg5Tw19kSElxMkq63MT0DstbpgsFl7iUE7LCjihiE=; b=LkzsTrfWiWjupgCBYCIR7Dj61NezW2CcPzbKWljyCl/5IGuQ/MSptxysteG0JgMQ9c /0wnSu1meWDOZawA9hJmHGvQeC7t/EBW6PpOjGSPHMRLZS9Rh8XaGA2xzCVvbbCoWkVW KdyNkoMxB70vBdlKrQ/xNHVoPFhBaONQCKZ5mu/JaVaLTpA7OVF5QrxreHXTCOyK2LvK ADfVt8/C/G3te72ArgbkjySPyfjvAS2FD45UxquevI3YKA+uM6HW3yuiYYc0vHcrpZ7/ fG+GtMT9gsm/vZaNXxl/pTJru8wqiIqzhZpTDWgYehhXbMsVEANwI99olSsksJNxe+V2 xG3g== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.12.233 with SMTP id b9mr4717061wic.8.1396618477596; Fri, 04 Apr 2014 06:34:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.106.130 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 06:34:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.106.130 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 06:34:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <852615d6f8d742a095d2701496c62275@BY2PR03MB412.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 06:34:37 -0700 Message-ID: From: Cb B To: Dave Thaler Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c241143e790304f63794ce Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/40_0Tr9b2EkdhRGa5Y1U10RFOsM Cc: softwires@ietf.org, v6ops-chairs@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [Softwires] draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip-01 X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 13:34:47 -0000 --001a11c241143e790304f63794ce Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hello folks, No follow-up in a week. I assume the below explanation and exisiting text are ok. To restate, this I-D simply generalizes the scope of 192.0.0.0/29. There is no guidance on how specific addresses may be used. It is assumed the deploying party will not cause a conflict on the host by assiging the same address to the host multipls times.... as that is a general ip configuration rule. I will ask v6ops to accept this i-d and direct them to this thread to see the softwire view. CB On Mar 29, 2014 4:59 AM, "Cb B" wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Dave Thaler wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Softwires [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Cb B > >> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 10:58 AM > >> To: softwires@ietf.org > >> Subject: [Softwires] draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip-01 > >> > >> Hi Softwires, > >> > >> Ales presented draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip-01 in softwires at the last IETF > >> meeting. > >> > >> I am attempting to have this I-D adopted by v6ops, but v6ops requested > >> feedback from softwires first. > >> > >> Pertaining to the minutes, i would like to address some topics to make sure it > >> is ok for v6ops to move forward with adoption > >> > >> https://tools.ietf.org/wg/softwire/minutes?item=minutes-89-softwire.html > >> > >> The addresses, both in DS-lite and 464xlat, never appears on the wire so > >> there is no chance of overlap or collision. > > > > Disagree, that conclusion doesn't follow (and in my experience it's wrong). > > Overlap/collision happens when there are two interfaces on the same host > > (even if they're not in use simultaneously). The collisions can affect > > the routing table (if the host implements in such a way), ACLs like in > > host firewall policies and such, and various application-layer uses. > > > > Ah, i see your point. If the host is itself both a B4 and a CLAT at > the same time, then this collision may occur within the host, not on > the wire. > > > It's fine to specify use as the default range (e.g. for 464xlat or DS-lite) but > > important to never constrain it to only that range, assuming the range is made > > non-DS-lite specific. > > > > -Dave > > Is there such a constraint that would cause a problem? > > Looking at RFC6333 and draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip, i see that RFC6333 > says the B4 SHOULD use 192.0.0.2. To a rational person, a good reason > to not use 192.0.0.2 is that it is in use for a CLAT interface on the > same host, which fits with the SHOULD wording. > > Is there some text that you could suggest that may clarify this > situation in draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip or is it ok for v6ops to adopt > as-is? As it stands, the I-D simply says that 192.0.0.0/29 will be > generalized without making any further statements how addresses may be > used within that range. > > CB --001a11c241143e790304f63794ce Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello folks,

No follow-up in a week. I assume the below explanation and e= xisiting text are ok.=A0

To restate, this I-D simply generalizes the scope of 192.0.0.0/29.=A0 There is no guidance on how s= pecific addresses may be used. It is assumed the deploying party will not c= ause a conflict on the host by assiging the same address to the host multip= ls times.... as that is a general ip configuration rule.

I will ask v6ops to accept this i-d and direct them to this = thread to see the softwire view.

CB

On Mar 29, 2014 4:59 AM, "Cb B" <cb.list6@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com> wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Softwires [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Cb B
> >> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2014 10:58 AM
> >> To: softwires@ietf.org<= /a>
> >> Subject: [Softwires] draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip-01
> >>
> >> Hi Softwires,
> >>
> >> Ales presented draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip-01 in softwires at th= e last IETF
> >> meeting.
> >>
> >> I am attempting to have this I-D adopted by v6ops, but v6ops = requested
> >> feedback from softwires first.
> >>
> >> Pertaining to the minutes, i would like to address some topic= s to make sure it
> >> is ok =A0for v6ops to move forward with adoption
> >>
> >> https://tools.ietf.org/wg/softwire/minutes?item= =3Dminutes-89-softwire.html
> >>
> >> The addresses, both in DS-lite and 464xlat, never appears on = the wire so
> >> there is no chance of overlap or collision.
> >
> > Disagree, that conclusion doesn't follow (and in my experienc= e it's wrong).
> > Overlap/collision happens when there are two interfaces on the sa= me host
> > (even if they're not in use simultaneously). =A0 The collisio= ns can affect
> > the routing table (if the host implements in such a way), ACLs li= ke in
> > host firewall policies and such, and various application-layer us= es.
> >
>
> Ah, i see your point. =A0If the host is itself both a B4 and a CLAT at=
> the same time, then this collision may occur within the host, not on > the wire.
>
> > It's fine to specify use as the default range (e.g. for 464xl= at or DS-lite) but
> > important to never constrain it to only that range, assuming the = range is made
> > non-DS-lite specific.
> >
> > -Dave
>
> Is there such a constraint that would cause a problem?
>
> Looking at RFC6333 and draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip, i see that RFC6333 > says the B4 SHOULD use 192.0.0.2. =A0To a rational person, a good reas= on
> to not use =A0192.0.0.2 is that it is in use for a CLAT interface on t= he
> same host, which fits with the SHOULD wording.
>
> Is there some text that you could suggest that may clarify this
> situation in draft-byrne-v6ops-clatip or is it ok for v6ops to adopt > as-is? =A0As it stands, the I-D simply says that 192.0.0.0/29 will be
> generalized without making any further statements how addresses may be=
> used within that range.
>
> CB

--001a11c241143e790304f63794ce-- From nobody Sun Apr 6 19:46:06 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 004981A0661; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 19:46:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JWuhK_fM3qFW; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 19:45:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3EDF1A0662; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 19:45:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.2.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140407024558.5386.48791.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2014 19:45:58 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/XbnC5ppGF-1ag7FXzlNrskcOM9g Cc: softwires@ietf.org Subject: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-06.txt X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 02:46:04 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Softwires Working Group of the IETF. Title : Softwire Mesh Management Information Base (MIB) Authors : Yong Cui Jiang Dong Peng Wu Mingwei Xu Antti Yla-Jaaski Filename : draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-06.txt Pages : 16 Date : 2014-04-06 Abstract: This memo defines a portion of the Management Information Base (MIB) for use with network management protocols in the Internet community. In particular it defines objects for managing softwire mesh. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-06 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-06 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Sun Apr 6 21:37:56 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 066031A0671 for ; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 21:37:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KzB2gRcuv50e for ; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 21:37:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usevmg21.ericsson.net (usevmg21.ericsson.net [198.24.6.65]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 216A71A064B for ; Sun, 6 Apr 2014 21:37:48 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c6180641-b7f638e000005a82-01-534228af8744 Received: from EUSAAHC002.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.78]) by usevmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 35.55.23170.FA822435; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 06:25:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [164.48.125.62] (147.117.188.8) by smtps-am.internal.ericsson.com (147.117.188.78) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.174.1; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 00:37:41 -0400 Message-ID: <53422B8F.2020109@ericsson.com> Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 00:37:35 -0400 From: Suresh Krishnan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Softwires WG Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [147.117.188.8] X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpkluLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZXLrHT3e9hlOwwdaDqhY/tiRbHF62lcli a3esA7PHkiU/mTxeH5jP6nH881vmAOYoLpuU1JzMstQifbsErozrM/8wFXxirZjcfJ61gfEN SxcjJ4eEgInEhj+tbBC2mMSFe+uBbC4OIYGjjBJ7pm1nh3C2MEpc+90JlOHg4BXQlvh2vhKk gUVAReLFjz6wZjaQQTs/M4HYogJhEu0XZjKD2LwCghInZz4BWyYioCrxZOcDsHpmAU+JFRu+ MYLYwgIuEm8v3IWK20pcmHOdBcKWl9j+dg7YHCEBTYmta76zQhyqKPHi+E+mCYwCs5CsmIWk fRaS9gWMzKsYOUqLU8ty040MNzECg/GYBJvjDsYFnywPMUpzsCiJ83556xwkJJCeWJKanZpa kFoUX1Sak1p8iJGJg1OqgbHGnv9mhz6XW7DZsw/LN2+eV+76YbWKUsTlfyrl7xq+iSju+XU7 JOjKtpiv6StP7Hi5/9ftBwv1kjRVdVdlvtOY4HDLNc3L81KXhaZBqaz7dpc3LHznwiweOC0/ 2+Fy8+fc74msoQ8M7H0+1KrpNFot8fOepKn5f7m1SX7Xq1DhV865M8yuzldiKc5INNRiLipO BAAxb0hTFAIAAA== Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/9mGXXufXlJwDaDthIfa8e91HX2o Cc: Yong Cui Subject: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07 X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 04:37:53 -0000 Hi all, This message starts a two week softwire working group last call on advancing the draft about the DHCPv6 Options for configuration of Softwire Address and Port Mapped Clients 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 http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07.txt http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07 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. This last call will conclude on April 21 2014. Regards, Suresh & Yong From nobody Wed Apr 16 03:57:13 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FC931A012E for ; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 03:57:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AMpkCCzxxIJi for ; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 03:57:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cernet.edu.cn (sea.net.edu.cn [202.112.39.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF9D01A012D for ; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 03:57:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [202.38.117.129]) by centos (Coremail) with SMTP id AQAAf3ALtwPxYU5TcMcAAA--.4723S5; Wed, 16 Apr 2014 18:56:50 +0800 (CST) Message-ID: <534E61F9.2070008@cernet.edu.cn> Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 18:56:57 +0800 From: Xing Li User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Suresh Krishnan References: <53422B8F.2020109@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <53422B8F.2020109@ericsson.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-CM-TRANSID: AQAAf3ALtwPxYU5TcMcAAA--.4723S5 X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvdXoWruF4ftrW7uFWxJry7JF1UKFg_yoWDtFgE93 97tFyxK3y2kay7Krs7trWSyrnrGrWUWFWUA34UJr13uFy0vr4DJrn2g343Kw1UWryrAwnx Grn3Xr1F9ay3ujkaLaAFLSUrUUUUUb8apTn2vfkv8UJUUUU8Yxn0WfASr-VFAUDa7-sFnT 9fnUUIcSsGvfJTRUUUbb8YjsxI4VWxJwAYFVCjjxCrM7AC8VAFwI0_Gr0_Xr1l1xkIjI8I 6I8E6xAIw20EY4v20xvaj40_Wr0E3s1l1IIY67AEw4v_Jr0_Jr4l8cAvFVAK0II2c7xJM2 8EF7xvwVC0I7IYx2IY67AKxVWUJVWUCwA2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVCY1x0267AKxVWUJVW8 JwA2z4x0Y4vEx4A2jsIE14v26r4UJVWxJr1l84ACjcxK6I8E87Iv6xkF7I0E14v26F4UJV W0owAS0I0E0xvYzxvE52x082IY62kv0487Mc02F40EFcxC0VAKzVAqx4xG6I80ewAv7VC2 z280aVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1lOx8S6xCaFVCjc4AY6r1j6r4UM4x0Y48IcVAKI48JMxkIecxEwV AFwVW8twCF04k20xvY0x0EwIxGrwC20s026c02F40E14v26r1j6r18MI8I3I0E7480Y4vE 14v26r106r1rMI8E67AF67kF1VAFwI0_Jrv_JF1lIxkGc2Ij64vIr41lIxAIcVC0I7IYx2 IY67AKxVWUJVWUCwCI42IY6xIIjxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1lIxAIcVCF04k26cxK x2IYs7xG6rWUJVWrZr1UMIIF0xvEx4A2jsIE14v26r4j6F4UMIIF0xvEx4A2jsIEc7CjxV AFwI0_Gr0_Gr1UYxBIdaVFxhVjvjDU0xZFpf9x07UtsqXUUUUU= X-CM-SenderInfo: p0lqwqxfhu0vvwohv3gofq/ Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/DhY18thkD9n__HNDUKb4W9owDaw Cc: Softwires WG , Yong Cui Subject: Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07 X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 10:57:10 -0000 I support advancing this document. It defines the provisioning mechanism for map-e, map-t and lw4o6. xing Suresh Krishnan 写道: > Hi all, > This message starts a two week softwire working group last call on > advancing the draft about the DHCPv6 Options for configuration of > Softwire Address and Port Mapped Clients 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 > > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07.txt > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07 > > 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. This last > call will conclude on April 21 2014. > > Regards, > Suresh & Yong > > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > > From nobody Thu Apr 17 06:56:13 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30B491A016D for ; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 06:56:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.773 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.773 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BBcBqGoAe5Rr for ; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 06:56:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CD3D1A0127 for ; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 06:56:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=480; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1397742962; x=1398952562; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=8FO3mduI6OwbrBJG7Sp+bUsbHrIjpSRsYyu6HShw5UI=; b=GY3a5uEyLPqvr7yUyJz22tLyhsTuou+9YZvASxRckQRm2MjAOniCf4su KHuMcTY811swaGUUjgo92SMZESruD9OP8JfeUqDEwXsiPggMG8FpyN0Xf wVmxfeJl/uvTMC36kskWMUgMcVhP6fTUfots2y3BbdFp4gr5/s9woymkr Q=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgkFAALdT1OtJV2d/2dsb2JhbABZgmUhgRLDX4EkFnSCJwEEOj8SASoUQiYBBA4NE4dhAcsGF44RAQEeMYMrgRQEqzuDMYFyOQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,879,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="36612419" Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Apr 2014 13:56:01 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com [173.36.12.88]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s3HDu1Jm017256 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 17 Apr 2014 13:56:01 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com ([fe80::747b:83e1:9755:d453]) by xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com ([173.36.12.88]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 08:56:01 -0500 From: "Nobo Akiya (nobo)" To: "draft-tsou-softwire-bfd-ds-lite@tools.ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Mail regarding draft-tsou-softwire-bfd-ds-lite Thread-Index: Ac9aQnAh6MBF9X6xTia1JEN4vf3AgQ== Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 13:56:01 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [161.44.212.138] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/fSbajHbU4qf4BXAHr8NQgbxsR1o Cc: "softwires@ietf.org" Subject: [Softwires] Mail regarding draft-tsou-softwire-bfd-ds-lite X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 13:56:11 -0000 Hi Authors, Couple of questions around proposed the BFD solution. 1. Is the goal for B4 to detect [lack of] reachability to AFTR? Or does the= goal include AFTR to keep state of which B4s are *speaking to it*? 2. It's fairly clear how BFD session can be instantiated/maintained on B4 (= to AFTR). However, I'm not clear on how BFD sessions are instantiated/maint= ained on AFTR (to B4s). Is there some sort of automatic mechanism, or is th= is configured? -Nobo From nobody Thu Apr 17 08:11:17 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC4BE1A0101 for ; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 08:11:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3kAQC-RpHt4s for ; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 08:11:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5CF11A0138 for ; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 08:11:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ians-mbp.lan ([62.225.30.19]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MfVU3-1WKWG6381L-00P7tp; Thu, 17 Apr 2014 17:10:53 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\)) From: Ian Farrer In-Reply-To: <53422B8F.2020109@ericsson.com> Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 17:10:52 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <37A243DD-5249-4070-AB19-6DFFCFE17AA7@gmx.com> References: <53422B8F.2020109@ericsson.com> To: Suresh Krishnan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874) X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:73NQ969ovtuexcu28PRx9AllZ7nmpkWaKG/QGodd+0z7PkAYPEv nNN5DNbAXoqBzFX+h8KtejRNNqy9dznzb3JMx1ikCVzU84pNVyz+QguJWyDIju68G1w7k9n JmAC57ewL+qEFcOyMzFEg8XgnkV3sj8aLDvbpbDrWQemMk4LKB0DGpWscUpxZdZsYEv8HoY 6mU0/P/pUJS9k2aIxJsng== Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/dNI3l5Do7uVjgD-GC0hhm5wZGMI Cc: Softwires WG , Yong Cui Subject: Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07 X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 15:11:11 -0000 Hi, I have one question about the draft as it stands at the moment: Currently, OPTION_S46_BR is limited to only be a sub-option carried = within one of the S46 container options (described in section 3). = However, other softwire provisioning mechanisms also need this = configuration parameter, for example if you=92re using DHCPv4 over = DHCPv6. To re-use this parameter for DHCPv4o6 as it stands within the container = would be very messy: A client needs to indicate its support for = OPTION_S46_CONT_LW and DHCPv4o6 in the ORO, it then gets the parameter = from one end of the softwire from DHCPv6 and the other end of the = softwire using DHCPv4o6. Two solutions spring to mind: 1, Loosen the restriction in this draft so that OPTION_S46_BR can be = used outside of one of the S46 Containers. This would then allow the = possibility of the client including the option within an ORO option in = the DHCPV4-QUERY/RESPONSE messages in the DHCPv4o6 message flow. 2, Keep the restriction in the map-dhcp draft and create a new option = for provisioning the BR specifically for softwire clients using = DHCPv4o6. The outcome of this may also have a knock on effect of what=92s going to = be possible if we ever resurrect the unified-cpe work. And two comments on section 4.5: This section is entirely MAP specific, although the sub-option is = generally applicable to all of the containers. The default value of 6 for the =91offset=92 field either shouldn=92t be = specified here, or should have =916=92 for MAP and =910=92 for lw4o6. Cheers, Ian On 7 Apr 2014, at 06:37, Suresh Krishnan = wrote: > Hi all, > This message starts a two week softwire working group last call on = advancing the draft about the DHCPv6 Options for configuration of = Softwire Address and Port Mapped Clients 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-dhcp-07.txt > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07 >=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. This last = call will conclude on April 21 2014. >=20 > Regards, > Suresh & Yong >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires From nobody Tue Apr 22 05:46:47 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3A141A03F4; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 05:46:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YgfovLhkZHZ7; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 05:46:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82D181A03EC; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 05:46:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.3.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140422124637.11463.55176.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 05:46:37 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/YlFwEY4NHH91R30-bDgwKMuu31s Cc: softwires@ietf.org Subject: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-deployment-04.txt X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 12:46:42 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Softwires Working Group of the IETF. Title : Mapping of Address and Port (MAP) - Deployment Considerations Authors : Qiong Sun Maoke Chen Gang Chen Tina Tsou Simon Perreault Filename : draft-ietf-softwire-map-deployment-04.txt Pages : 30 Date : 2014-04-18 Abstract: This document describes when and how an operator uses the technique of Mapping of Address and Port (MAP) for the IPv4 residual deployment in the IPv6-dominant domain. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map-deployment/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-deployment-04 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-softwire-map-deployment-04 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Tue Apr 22 06:07:12 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B18F1A0418 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 06:07:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.773 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.773 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TTwrcGHBJ35N for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 06:06:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-1.cisco.com (aer-iport-1.cisco.com [173.38.203.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C0611A020E for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 06:06:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2572; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1398172001; x=1399381601; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to; bh=ZU/F9YuN4rgbVdpkI2XQJSozjWQQo2721ZA1MkAWPKM=; b=RMJU6CnVRndRDGbWYkdUPIZXUEPrYZ9h/wDTf8W1tURVT8ea4KspuN4s rWcdeFFbtyWTcoYZDpjN7MHBA4CiG37fx8oYhEbTAq7EyRa0wk0x4SnPn 4HVulicPRWB/c7/Wn5h/wpcgaVfHFzvjAl4zKt/zEY58kdihxhId7+C4n U=; X-Files: signature.asc : 496 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhYFABRoVlOQ/khR/2dsb2JhbABZgwbFPIEXFnSCJQEBAQMBHUoSBQsLRlcGLogeCMxJF41+WAeDJIEUAQOQb4gBklKDMzuBLA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,904,1389744000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="23928805" Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com ([144.254.72.81]) by aer-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Apr 2014 13:06:40 +0000 Received: from dhcp-10-61-103-98.cisco.com (dhcp-10-61-103-98.cisco.com [10.61.103.98]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s3MD6dpB001482 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 22 Apr 2014 13:06:39 GMT Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_388E2E22-6689-4338-9FEA-816C1F37EB9D"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\)) From: Ole Troan In-Reply-To: <37A243DD-5249-4070-AB19-6DFFCFE17AA7@gmx.com> Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 15:07:10 +0200 Message-Id: References: <53422B8F.2020109@ericsson.com> <37A243DD-5249-4070-AB19-6DFFCFE17AA7@gmx.com> To: Ian Farrer X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/sp7B3FGoZHSFbnioAzH_Cgr9v4U Cc: Softwires WG , Yong Cui Subject: Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07 X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 13:07:04 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_388E2E22-6689-4338-9FEA-816C1F37EB9D Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Ian, > Currently, OPTION_S46_BR is limited to only be a sub-option carried = within one of the S46 container options (described in section 3). = However, other softwire provisioning mechanisms also need this = configuration parameter, for example if you=92re using DHCPv4 over = DHCPv6. >=20 > To re-use this parameter for DHCPv4o6 as it stands within the = container would be very messy: A client needs to indicate its support = for OPTION_S46_CONT_LW and DHCPv4o6 in the ORO, it then gets the = parameter from one end of the softwire from DHCPv6 and the other end of = the softwire using DHCPv4o6. is the complete flow and options of how LW46 is provisioned with DHCPv4 = described anywhere? half and half with DHCPv6 options and DHCPv4 = options? > Two solutions spring to mind: >=20 > 1, Loosen the restriction in this draft so that OPTION_S46_BR can be = used outside of one of the S46 Containers. This would then allow the = possibility of the client including the option within an ORO option in = the DHCPV4-QUERY/RESPONSE messages in the DHCPv4o6 message flow. > 2, Keep the restriction in the map-dhcp draft and create a new option = for provisioning the BR specifically for softwire clients using = DHCPv4o6. >=20 > The outcome of this may also have a knock on effect of what=92s going = to be possible if we ever resurrect the unified-cpe work. if you need the OPTION_S46_BR option in particular, perhaps something = else as well? I think the cleanest would be to specify a new container = option for this "mode". cheers, Ole --Apple-Mail=_388E2E22-6689-4338-9FEA-816C1F37EB9D Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTVml+AAoJEP0up8EdT99JXfIH/190QoHuw/wmRIxV57z0SWDc M8UFhYPVZ0PhiDSz887eui+rDxr2jFvQw3qvBwUMqtDkrzRO5D3/7fl3K00i6sJS xhexCbgD/UHCbroElIL/nCgdQE7cPngGN8MuEVJkNmJ8bhmm97G/BBwb7JFFd+zd R9IyXbyC+xlvsGOWPB7PHeXviHcyEhzCOWwfbacWughZzvfMmGEDbfGPIxwbWbFb lY4we0w0XXUqDaFbp/axaDd7JFd2GH6mh3E9bCtXNBrk0bpdjOd8L91ACtdpNHgM sisrU2z6ysrSfY0N2B9pCge2vAYgDWqUMvyQuqO7x1TXYpu3xzx8n7yuRw5z0UA= =qoyu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_388E2E22-6689-4338-9FEA-816C1F37EB9D-- From nobody Tue Apr 22 06:17:17 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5960F1A044A for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 06:17:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.773 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.773 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id y5Owd2sZ0l2R for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 06:17:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9AF01A0430 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 06:17:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1844; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1398172627; x=1399382227; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to; bh=tVF+3hq7i8nE5J98G/Xyz6qx7mxmH10n5zE/Jt9sb+k=; b=bkntkc76skiGsILgRoths+ixfxwKanU4gmmx6hgZU9071X1h/Mq0+Jxn 267Oi9RFriaggmrLy51WECB/BqwZzIHiIbvtxJd9L3jtzs+AG+IXDWTFJ zryynFgEJi+rmjNC/wdVg7ga8ul4Rij0T0zKf5XHPaZwEpastYlyegFJo 8=; X-Files: signature.asc : 496 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhYFACZrVlOQ/khL/2dsb2JhbABZgwbFPIEXFnSCJQEBAQMBHVwFCwtGVwaITAjMUxeOVgeDJIEUAQOQb4gBklKDMzs X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,904,1389744000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="19189524" Received: from ams-core-2.cisco.com ([144.254.72.75]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Apr 2014 13:17:05 +0000 Received: from dhcp-10-61-103-98.cisco.com (dhcp-10-61-103-98.cisco.com [10.61.103.98]) by ams-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s3MDH4Us019800 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 22 Apr 2014 13:17:05 GMT Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_902C7CAC-67C8-4DFE-AE9B-65492E502014"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\)) From: Ole Troan In-Reply-To: <37A243DD-5249-4070-AB19-6DFFCFE17AA7@gmx.com> Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 15:17:36 +0200 Message-Id: References: <53422B8F.2020109@ericsson.com> <37A243DD-5249-4070-AB19-6DFFCFE17AA7@gmx.com> To: Ian Farrer X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/NqvNLVKq0vjedhIBS4uF8218Cc4 Cc: Softwires WG , Yong Cui Subject: Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07 X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 13:17:16 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_902C7CAC-67C8-4DFE-AE9B-65492E502014 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Ian, > And two comments on section 4.5: > This section is entirely MAP specific, although the sub-option is = generally applicable to all of the containers. while I think it is fine that it refers to the "MAP algorithm", I agree = it shouldn't refer to "MAP interface". would you have a go at more = generic text? > The default value of 6 for the =91offset=92 field either shouldn=92t = be specified here, or should have =916=92 for MAP and =910=92 for lw4o6. we might not need to include that in the map-dhcp document, since it is = already in map base. btw, is '0' a wise choice for LW46? I don't see any evaluation or = recommendations in the LW46 document about what to do with a PSID of 0 = and an offset of 0. try sourcing a few packets from TCP port 25 to = random picked destination, to understand my point. cheers, Ole --Apple-Mail=_902C7CAC-67C8-4DFE-AE9B-65492E502014 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTVmvwAAoJEP0up8EdT99JpuYH/3pbJteP/AIbgzV25XfHCHql +ZdDYZFLqiuX4pBPdfcQwjTBXGEifzUd/nIn3crD68EQmMTt5IkLNQGXY1Dwjae3 53A2s3hZhG3oQzMFFMBN+2+BHxNAMsjBMXfcClmBkf5iFdpnz3Z0TY9qUVaijIRi lwNKsQ7YbYjpCiFFxCnpGeqQg7uJkt7bFSvCji0LY1m2ViwHdoRj5PQLvgam++9N MoMg1HcD2yMSfv1CP0YUMSF4/kXcYlt2T+MgaXGxkQUr71Yy773GrQ7k9a22Ml/m huu2U6wbaUputqBWRrZFU5LFcX09hUPPQKkFEhFhxxeF9dzZ/B8qLfwNtUG/pdw= =sEKS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_902C7CAC-67C8-4DFE-AE9B-65492E502014-- From nobody Tue Apr 22 09:39:15 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 137111A06A4; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:39:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wOefKCC3jw3b; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:39:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ee0-x234.google.com (mail-ee0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c00::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B4F11A0697; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:39:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ee0-f52.google.com with SMTP id e49so4811451eek.39 for ; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:39:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=OML1TjpCB5izjlHOwP782CqPhRwE6QtDBM14deD6X6g=; b=a+o3sAvCRXosYX28bSW63rIEsRgExFLyH4B/+5E9UUajhQiTPOtVdBYJyklvYK26bC 6V7ggv+hIYSxvfrXAVtgfr2l6G12mN3smif6Oigdju0oEuQxq1oGphI12E0mlD3+pjLK jDaaHZLKxbSIpGM8xw/6bxjh3+T0O0tkMnyh59EFRF3s4Y3IpBE8OJGDAfZ/FTFu8Jd7 reCwMQmrvWmT5X3BpF6lkRgritUJa4Qm76TJNlLaWemJhegFk38cJNNLXvn0y/rF8JtC Sn+I23iF16xQ4ebiVtwJjtbIH5IMxyPqAm3GmawcIt0Xo+jpcLTHVGKNCFdCKAzKMl90 P38w== X-Received: by 10.15.82.132 with SMTP id a4mr56683368eez.47.1398184741104; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:39:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.0.100] (109107011157.gdansk.vectranet.pl. [109.107.11.157]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id q49sm114462345eem.34.2014.04.22.09.38.59 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 22 Apr 2014 09:39:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <53569B1C.9030803@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 18:38:52 +0200 From: Tomek Mrugalski User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dhcwg References: <53422B8F.2020109@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <53422B8F.2020109@ericsson.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 X-TagToolbar-Keys: D20140422183852823 X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <53422B8F.2020109@ericsson.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/eSbK9xhZsgJ5MTxXhRFMgoYP3KA Cc: Softwires-wg Subject: [Softwires] WGLC for draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07 in Softwires WG X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 16:39:12 -0000 Oops, that slipped under the radar for while. I'd like to bring up to DHC attention a document that goes through WGLC in Softwires. This is a document that specifies provisioning mechanism for MAP, lw4over6 and possibly other IPv4/IPv6 transition technologies. It defines 8 DHCPv6 options. Some of them are containers and there are many inter-option dependencies (including dependence on PD options), so it's not a straightforward doc. Please post your DHCP-related comments to Softwires list with cc: to dhc. If you have MAP-, lw4over6- or other IPv4/IPv6 transition specific comments, please post them to Softwires only and not to DHC. With my DHC co-chair hat off: I used to be a primary author of that draft around 1,5 years ago. Since then I gave up and didn't follow on the discussions (simply because of lack of time). While technically I'm still listed as a co-author, I can't make any comments on the quality or correctness of this draft. Tomek -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07 Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 00:37:35 -0400 From: Suresh Krishnan To: Softwires WG CC: Yong Cui Hi all, This message starts a two week softwire working group last call on advancing the draft about the DHCPv6 Options for configuration of Softwire Address and Port Mapped Clients 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 http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07.txt http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07 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. This last call will conclude on April 21 2014. Regards, Suresh & Yong _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires From nobody Wed Apr 23 05:36:06 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45DCE1A02C5 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 05:36:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.3 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_37=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bfrYNGbOHW_l for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 05:36:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF72F1A01C3 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 05:36:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ians-mbp.lan ([62.225.30.33]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LfYqz-1XIHUg2yin-00p7pQ; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 14:35:55 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\)) From: Ian Farrer In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 14:35:55 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <53422B8F.2020109@ericsson.com> <37A243DD-5249-4070-AB19-6DFFCFE17AA7@gmx.com> To: Ole Troan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874) X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:tSxEXeJzZmBnjTDLcIG3W/V6NfNeICatAeVFIzOTJELWVBqeXZk wKnR1IY/mWFu40WrRDMC6Wv9baDdIjWM38lbTLB5ExksKqaaqBzjpmms+4I522L5oSzkPVv c2AqfXTFvMPf6NPUU/Vs9W7xfm1WivCDBcS23ZxVOrtsqDQROC9mIvebq3Ffzd85nLfluBx h4fCNZAP2PkAoB48Mml7A== Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/YBAWF_DTYyBric38EAPMQfAs6EM Cc: Softwires WG , Yong Cui Subject: Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07 X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 12:36:05 -0000 Hi Ole, Please see inline. Cheers, Ian On 22 Apr 2014, at 15:17, Ole Troan wrote: > Ian, >=20 >> And two comments on section 4.5: >> This section is entirely MAP specific, although the sub-option is = generally applicable to all of the containers. >=20 > while I think it is fine that it refers to the "MAP algorithm", I = agree it shouldn't refer to "MAP interface". would you have a go at more = generic text? [ian] Couple of changes to 4.5: Old: The Port Parameters Option specifies optional Rule Port Parameters that MAY be provided as part of the Mapping Rule for CEs using the MAP algorithm. New: The Port Parameters Option specifies optional Port Set information that MAY be provided to CEs. Old: When receiving the Port Parameters option with an explicit PSID, the client MUST use this explicit PSID in configuring its MAP interface. If the conveyed IPv4 address is not 32 bit-long, the option MUST be discarded. The formula for this check is "prefix4-len + ea-len =3D = 32" and serves to ensure that the explicit PSID is only applied to configurations with a completely formed IPv4 address. New: On receipt of the Port Parameters option with an explicit PSID, clients MUST configure their softwire interface with the received explicit PSID. For MAP-E and MAP-T clients, if the conveyed IPv4 = address is not 32 bits-long, the option MUST be discarded. The formula for=20= this check is "prefix4-len + ea-len =3D 32" and serves to ensure that=20= the explicit PSID is only applied to configurations with a completely formed IPv4 address. >=20 >> The default value of 6 for the =91offset=92 field either shouldn=92t = be specified here, or should have =916=92 for MAP and =910=92 for lw4o6. >=20 > we might not need to include that in the map-dhcp document, since it = is already in map base. > btw, is '0' a wise choice for LW46? I don't see any evaluation or = recommendations in the LW46 document about what to do with a PSID of 0 = and an offset of 0. try sourcing a few packets from TCP port 25 to = random picked destination, to understand my point. >=20 [ian] What about the following wording change:=20 Old:Allowed values are between 0 and 15, with the default value being 6. New: Allowed values are between 0 and 15. Default values for this field are = specific to the softwire mechanism being implemented and are defined in = the relevant specification document.=20 Good spot on the WKP exclusion. Before the lw4o6 draft was updated to = reference map-dhcp for configuration, the port configuration was = described in sun-dhc-port-set-option, which also stated that the WKPs = should not be assigned. This advice got lost when changing to reference = map-dhcp. I=92ll make a suggested text update for the lw4o6 draft to fix = this. Does that work for you? > cheers, > Ole From nobody Wed Apr 23 06:47:21 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C88011A03A9 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 06:47:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.173 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.173 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, J_CHICKENPOX_37=0.6, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a1SUmP0nrUtJ for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 06:47:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6B1F1A020F for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 06:47:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3293; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1398260834; x=1399470434; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to; bh=oyWUjGp8OWtHNyjwsmaT78gfoEcQWR/7o02a9rVa+9k=; b=D7gd48wb2XNf6AekqCwXnW0n3hWvI19eGn2AGng96PWZEnj5ER147YEN UJnRwRIUhfNiEUXHSqgXBcyN5rTg8a5RDXQAjT6Py7gbKKu0bwLwmMupR wU9vzYweVQlTcjxANQyIdU0Uf4IO0lxLgRA63QPaR1rWZCgyk6riegIAf U=; X-Files: signature.asc : 496 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmAFAELDV1OQ/khN/2dsb2JhbABZgwbFWYEZFnSCJQEBAQMBHVwFCwtGVwaITAjPRheOWAeDJIEVAQOQcIgFklWDMzs X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,912,1389744000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="20262042" Received: from ams-core-4.cisco.com ([144.254.72.77]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Apr 2014 13:47:13 +0000 Received: from dhcp-10-61-102-116.cisco.com (dhcp-10-61-102-116.cisco.com [10.61.102.116]) by ams-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s3NDlCgS014677 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 23 Apr 2014 13:47:12 GMT Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A04AEA28-DB0C-4B99-8D98-17364981B3DC"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\)) From: Ole Troan In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:47:11 +0200 Message-Id: <92E51E75-2914-421F-B222-7478EC3D6A02@cisco.com> References: <53422B8F.2020109@ericsson.com> <37A243DD-5249-4070-AB19-6DFFCFE17AA7@gmx.com> To: Ian Farrer X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/vTyZjBXHsWpY9bHphf1Y7rrYtD0 Cc: Softwires WG , Yong Cui Subject: Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07 X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 13:47:20 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_A04AEA28-DB0C-4B99-8D98-17364981B3DC Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Ian, thanks! > [ian] Couple of changes to 4.5: >=20 > Old: > The Port Parameters Option specifies optional Rule Port Parameters > that MAY be provided as part of the Mapping Rule for CEs using the > MAP algorithm. > New: > The Port Parameters Option specifies optional Port Set information > that MAY be provided to CEs. that looks fine. > Old: > When receiving the Port Parameters option with an explicit PSID, the > client MUST use this explicit PSID in configuring its MAP interface. > If the conveyed IPv4 address is not 32 bit-long, the option MUST be > discarded. The formula for this check is "prefix4-len + ea-len =3D = 32" > and serves to ensure that the explicit PSID is only applied to > configurations with a completely formed IPv4 address. > New: > On receipt of the Port Parameters option with an explicit PSID, = clients > MUST configure their softwire interface with the received > explicit PSID. For MAP-E and MAP-T clients, if the conveyed IPv4 = address > is not 32 bits-long, the option MUST be discarded. The formula for=20= > this check is "prefix4-len + ea-len =3D 32" and serves to ensure = that=20 > the explicit PSID is only applied to configurations with a = completely > formed IPv4 address. what about keeping the old text with your change of s/MAP = interface/softwire interface/. at least in theory LW46 could support IPv4 prefixes, or a new mechanism = could come along that did. > [ian] > What about the following wording change:=20 > Old:Allowed values are between 0 and 15, with the default value being = 6. > New: > Allowed values are between 0 and 15. Default values for this field are = specific to the softwire mechanism being implemented and are defined in = the relevant specification document.=20 that looks fine. updated. > Good spot on the WKP exclusion. Before the lw4o6 draft was updated to = reference map-dhcp for configuration, the port configuration was = described in sun-dhc-port-set-option, which also stated that the WKPs = should not be assigned. This advice got lost when changing to reference = map-dhcp. I=92ll make a suggested text update for the lw4o6 draft to fix = this. Does that work for you? yes, that would be good. cheers, Ole --Apple-Mail=_A04AEA28-DB0C-4B99-8D98-17364981B3DC Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTV8RfAAoJEP0up8EdT99J3HYH+gMKUnW9xU+Er9bj60Wa6yWO SJBso2qxbjgFwLv48msBLY81FvwtkgRDdW99/Nith9nnW+NXgqTVJu3m2bnTQdmW Ni7Cz+D65BZSgbMlzrhkKNNHXtetMWPuSmpFFOebOARuclII7KxJR1U5KMyXtsLr OeVszrxLex85dOVlCtF/l8LyDDWjxs9QhU7IFLqH7zfSmDzFmggEUHF9EZGCVjQW BtAy4neStuRGAxTQozZ2jGjzJzYgXnjdWYW6Ag0Mo3gxEVJBgDLNqUAoVSHOCoyC zQq8JXDrimNL2cAO+XFvvVakhWEVk7iRkYL0X70VHr4DcXTB2SAwuGXJAOHTpYE= =fToe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_A04AEA28-DB0C-4B99-8D98-17364981B3DC-- From nobody Wed Apr 23 07:52:53 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F40B51A02A7 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 07:52:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YTL0K-ywlWex for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 07:52:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0B421A0268 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 07:52:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ians-mbp.lan ([62.225.30.33]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MVsUW-1WRvvI0emu-00X30H; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 16:52:36 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\)) From: Ian Farrer In-Reply-To: <92E51E75-2914-421F-B222-7478EC3D6A02@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 16:52:36 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <5A8EDE2F-EA28-4991-B94F-A998701FD662@gmx.com> References: <53422B8F.2020109@ericsson.com> <37A243DD-5249-4070-AB19-6DFFCFE17AA7@gmx.com> <92E51E75-2914-421F-B222-7478EC3D6A02@cisco.com> To: Ole Troan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874) X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:rxJvHjz4NRms5/i31XUISHMnVYqz3a9jkh9LVPLueo5WKHARDTL S7RyBgEsPX8WWxLRNFLz8qCoWh901/luWu+jcbtiqLEyMowFo+mfs6fmtqn9NBsvhnJXDaU yrihpZm8eLED8YlOaXRMWy90gLgw3V5gigtcJPf/HaThuIpuD4KVopx+ZYc3EAEd0BWBMrB CBfq4E927Ub0MtNhbBusQ== Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/yAiwofpgwDLGfYYz8rUKPV3Zueg Cc: Softwires WG , Yong Cui Subject: Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07 X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 14:52:49 -0000 Hi Ole, >> Old: >> When receiving the Port Parameters option with an explicit PSID, the >> client MUST use this explicit PSID in configuring its MAP interface. >> If the conveyed IPv4 address is not 32 bit-long, the option MUST be >> discarded. The formula for this check is "prefix4-len + ea-len =3D = 32" >> and serves to ensure that the explicit PSID is only applied to >> configurations with a completely formed IPv4 address. >> New: >> On receipt of the Port Parameters option with an explicit PSID, = clients >> MUST configure their softwire interface with the received >> explicit PSID. For MAP-E and MAP-T clients, if the conveyed IPv4 = address >> is not 32 bits-long, the option MUST be discarded. The formula for=20= >> this check is "prefix4-len + ea-len =3D 32" and serves to ensure = that=20 >> the explicit PSID is only applied to configurations with a = completely >> formed IPv4 address. >=20 > what about keeping the old text with your change of s/MAP = interface/softwire interface/. > at least in theory LW46 could support IPv4 prefixes, or a new = mechanism could come along that did. >=20 [ian] Actually, looking at this again, the original text isn=92t = particularly clear. It talks about provisioning ports sets, and then = makes a leap to the length of the IPv4 address, which is not conveyed in = this option. Also, the 32 bit address checking logic is MAP specific. = So: When receiving the Port Parameters option with an explicit PSID, the client MUST use this explicit PSID in configuring its softwire = interface. If the client=92s IPv4 address (configured via a separate sub-option)=20= is not 32 bit-long, the Port Parameters option MUST be discarded. =20 For MAP-E and MAP-T clients, the formula for the address length check is "prefix4-len + ea-len =3D 32=94 and serves to ensure that the = explicit PSID is only applied to configurations with a completely formed IPv4 = address. Cheers, Ian= From nobody Wed Apr 23 11:52:21 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 143911A049E for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 11:52:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.4 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_37=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MltIqyob3bOh for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 11:52:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-x22a.google.com (mail-ie0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 084DC1A0031 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 11:52:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ie0-f170.google.com with SMTP id rd18so1358857iec.15 for ; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 11:52:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=g80n9MYTdMrCaBdjNo0BEWadSzhOcdaE8pDajmsI0uY=; b=wUzYg795vuL+dUdJJv41qdFzn6Y5YgfOX9I+AQ8LI/X99yqq2KYihTZT5URSUfVVdS o9xagO1GTV5eu6e6/+a580pAUaYzjAgHcCDywiDlkyP3Zz8fivQhW45/bbrR1njQ+smp 921dlmKZqaqxbVzp0I7gt6DUMcGkXzOeIzxCu8QxUtfb+e7mIqWpg0jPnBzBdByBBifW D+7bb8FfeTToFzGl9UPLWi1xMhgFpqvefcaA0ZFgi6diUCGypTgFaExU7YQgK6CBppC0 8nf6w7G/vh/48bAEK6PPHCNeYg6tOjJmo+I449kymGVgTECmi5LlyxzSAAL9YUf5Juk/ hN8g== X-Received: by 10.50.39.111 with SMTP id o15mr4681167igk.1.1398279133128; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 11:52:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.100] (dsl-173-206-0-110.tor.primus.ca. [173.206.0.110]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id kr5sm38492751igb.9.2014.04.23.11.52.12 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 23 Apr 2014 11:52:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <53580BD5.4070207@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 14:52:05 -0400 From: Tom Taylor User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ole Troan , Ian Farrer References: <53422B8F.2020109@ericsson.com> <37A243DD-5249-4070-AB19-6DFFCFE17AA7@gmx.com> <92E51E75-2914-421F-B222-7478EC3D6A02@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <92E51E75-2914-421F-B222-7478EC3D6A02@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/2PxcDty90FXuIQ5lNz9uNi41goo Cc: Softwires WG , Yong Cui Subject: Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07 X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 18:52:20 -0000 On 23/04/2014 9:47 AM, Ole Troan wrote: > Ian, > > thanks! > >> [ian] Couple of changes to 4.5: >> >> Old: >> The Port Parameters Option specifies optional Rule Port Parameters >> that MAY be provided as part of the Mapping Rule for CEs using the >> MAP algorithm. >> New: >> The Port Parameters Option specifies optional Port Set information >> that MAY be provided to CEs. > > that looks fine. > >> Old: >> When receiving the Port Parameters option with an explicit PSID, the >> client MUST use this explicit PSID in configuring its MAP interface. >> If the conveyed IPv4 address is not 32 bit-long, the option MUST be >> discarded. The formula for this check is "prefix4-len + ea-len = 32" >> and serves to ensure that the explicit PSID is only applied to >> configurations with a completely formed IPv4 address. >> New: >> On receipt of the Port Parameters option with an explicit PSID, clients >> MUST configure their softwire interface with the received >> explicit PSID. For MAP-E and MAP-T clients, if the conveyed IPv4 address >> is not 32 bits-long, the option MUST be discarded. The formula for >> this check is "prefix4-len + ea-len = 32" and serves to ensure that >> the explicit PSID is only applied to configurations with a completely >> formed IPv4 address. > > what about keeping the old text with your change of s/MAP interface/softwire interface/. > at least in theory LW46 could support IPv4 prefixes, or a new mechanism could come along that did. > >> [ian] >> What about the following wording change: >> Old:Allowed values are between 0 and 15, with the default value being 6. >> New: >> Allowed values are between 0 and 15. Default values for this field are specific to the softwire mechanism being implemented and are defined in the relevant specification document. > > that looks fine. updated. > >> Good spot on the WKP exclusion. Before the lw4o6 draft was updated to reference map-dhcp for configuration, the port configuration was described in sun-dhc-port-set-option, which also stated that the WKPs should not be assigned. This advice got lost when changing to reference map-dhcp. Ill make a suggested text update for the lw4o6 draft to fix this. Does that work for you? > > yes, that would be good. > > cheers, > Ole > On the WKP exclusion, you might point people to the last paragraph of Appendix B.1 in draft-ietf-softwire-map. Tom From nobody Thu Apr 24 01:16:19 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F5111A03A9 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 01:16:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.773 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.773 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2lGFVNrxc3sS for ; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 01:16:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aer-iport-3.cisco.com (aer-iport-3.cisco.com [173.38.203.53]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CABFA1A042F for ; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 01:16:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1813; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1398327365; x=1399536965; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id: references:to; bh=JoaLvuPxA6URPeG3WUZJQG+naeBFA3FueAZa6S3myyc=; b=kkz3/7PGl4uzpSKZ6lGaBo1RG3Ooyo/+yCj79Nv/SHlle5JsOxBKLt9B PSe+W89Ce13kWaiv8d/SiujoeHLHQwhlP2b2S+QcxTPYcRfpa2MU4ruVe runfYUxQklEkD+KRYVl914VNv8EvJfBU222m5yfACGE4zQAHM+gTBE0Pj M=; X-Files: signature.asc : 496 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFAAvIWFOQ/khN/2dsb2JhbABagwbFXIEZFnSCJQEBAQMBHVwFCwtGVwaITAjLeBeOWAeDJIEVAQOQcIgFklaDMzs X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,917,1389744000"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="20848979" Received: from ams-core-4.cisco.com ([144.254.72.77]) by aer-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Apr 2014 08:15:58 +0000 Received: from dhcp-10-61-102-38.cisco.com (dhcp-10-61-102-38.cisco.com [10.61.102.38]) by ams-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s3O8FvmU008692 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 24 Apr 2014 08:15:58 GMT Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2CF4017F-7336-437D-A247-A8A6EE0215C0"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\)) From: Ole Troan In-Reply-To: <5A8EDE2F-EA28-4991-B94F-A998701FD662@gmx.com> Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 10:15:57 +0200 Message-Id: <6C83D36F-7895-4994-A141-9B425EB7BBEA@cisco.com> References: <53422B8F.2020109@ericsson.com> <37A243DD-5249-4070-AB19-6DFFCFE17AA7@gmx.com> <92E51E75-2914-421F-B222-7478EC3D6A02@cisco.com> <5A8EDE2F-EA28-4991-B94F-A998701FD662@gmx.com> To: Ian Farrer X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/3m32KQtFiV0RU0kxvUHEY5-4-mE Cc: Softwires WG , Yong Cui Subject: Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07 X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 08:16:15 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_2CF4017F-7336-437D-A247-A8A6EE0215C0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Ian, > When receiving the Port Parameters option with an explicit PSID, the > client MUST use this explicit PSID in configuring its softwire = interface. > If the client=92s IPv4 address (configured via a separate sub-option)=20= > is not 32 bit-long, the Port Parameters option MUST be discarded. =20 > For MAP-E and MAP-T clients, the formula for the address length check > is "prefix4-len + ea-len =3D 32=94 and serves to ensure that the = explicit > PSID is only applied to configurations with a completely formed IPv4 = address. I don't like the implications that IPv4 address can be !=3D 32 bits. ;-) just simply: The Port Parameters option with an explicit PSID MUST be discarded if = the softwire node isn't configured with a full IPv4 address (e.g. IPv4 = prefix). ? cheers, Ole --Apple-Mail=_2CF4017F-7336-437D-A247-A8A6EE0215C0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTWMg9AAoJEP0up8EdT99J8HcIAKfCPWWedLiww0+tKBwcoroS Hs0mYNKOtgIvyiyUo55kfAuxJq9W1NWZI94rIE08zn14RHy8nh6gcEBTqUwBIG5k IlETy0pNDp5u4jyUrbQdsmLVP8km38z7EEw/HS4r7nTBfG4geVp5HHNzG9A8cSlO PoQT1z9hP5Z1kNn9Ie/LLtu2AvKFafWU5awLgR2RXE6Y92va3KxzdsDpAJR+QSAR JYk4FbCesMzHF1EtGyKRB9bNUIp5izxm96ldGGNW2IX7CFA9yA0gRiqKktmtnHPZ bg1MirWOIJRocCwtnln866/LX4uZ6IpCKd9xK3GXhB18o7ERvWJjzVPt8LC5c2o= =6PRS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_2CF4017F-7336-437D-A247-A8A6EE0215C0-- From nobody Thu Apr 24 19:03:06 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A8971A03FA for ; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 19:02:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LRuJZFmZzwN5 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 19:02:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-x236.google.com (mail-ie0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB3FB1A043D for ; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 19:02:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ie0-f182.google.com with SMTP id at1so1999873iec.27 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 19:02:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tPtqwxCSi3uTnu929ycxElAZyvRMDfqJqo8doky29Vw=; b=0+DZsenqlFdUmU4kwfr1QICQE279AtUWUMEXVfKlchlyj04xWnKZoBK5lVb3UGTPMF WIQebFhnEfmWTE1ytliK4XIUm7lIzYb1bDDWMpFT6/u3EzA/M90jSz3WyrdETpSZnNpK Ui58tUxWjUSDgWUqj0QQdShhCzPLNDPrclW9YSvDP2tvELYDR2fdZjHMxXW+F8V1/bKG mV9uE1UucoYrT7okEhcV4qCEiEUbUOGEOGxRlA1Q+C7Lly1t/8douvhBxzKWlaBVcAbh 8FZqOA1dWvsKCn4hF3zUyzksG/mj7r6KVA8Y/tPT2k8kQqaoMPG99GCKGsLN7IQ6pZbW Cxmg== X-Received: by 10.43.148.66 with SMTP id kf2mr4668577icc.30.1398391359381; Thu, 24 Apr 2014 19:02:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.100] (dsl-173-206-0-110.tor.primus.ca. [173.206.0.110]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id s1sm4038995igr.14.2014.04.24.19.02.38 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 24 Apr 2014 19:02:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5359C237.2030007@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 22:02:31 -0400 From: Tom Taylor User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: softwires@ietf.org References: <53422B8F.2020109@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <53422B8F.2020109@ericsson.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/JrK8WUWyMsAe5vvKfeO5r7U1vfc Subject: Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07 X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 02:02:55 -0000 I'm a bit late on this, but it comes from trying to sort out what the underlying information will look like as Diameter AVPs coming from AAA. This is just a question for clarification. As indicated in Section 5, bullet 1 of the MAP-E document, a MAP CE can be provisioned with multiple End-user IPv6 prefixes, each associated with its own Basic Mapping Rule. If I read things correctly in section 5.1 of draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07.txt, there are two cases: (1) Multiple domains: multiple instances of OPTION_S46_CONT_MAPE will be present. (2) Single domain, multiple subnets: multiple instances of OPTION_S46_RULE will be present within a single instance of OPTION_S46_CONT_MAPE. In either case, the correlation between the End-user IPv6 prefix and its corresponding Basic Mapping Rule is achieved through longest match. A good CPE implementation will validate that there is a 1-1 correspondence between the BMRs and the provisioned End-user IPv6 prefixes. Is my understanding correct? Tom Taylor On 07/04/2014 12:37 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote: > Hi all, > This message starts a two week softwire working group last call on > advancing the draft about the DHCPv6 Options for configuration of > Softwire Address and Port Mapped Clients 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 > > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07.txt > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07 > > 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. This last call will > conclude on April 21 2014. > > Regards, > Suresh & Yong > > > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires > From nobody Fri Apr 25 01:13:25 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF1791A0478 for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 01:13:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.273 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.273 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hBgTd9XZ2KVf for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 01:13:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from banjo.employees.org (banjo.employees.org [198.137.202.19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79D051A0473 for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 01:13:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from banjo.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by banjo.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20AA9626B; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 01:12:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; s=selector1; bh=0EWWudqHeU76bnoDpZs64 63tWlU=; b=fJpSWdCEuZrKloLidghPt0ePuj0xejbAGz+oN3pmP2zrR0CtMXGV1 sT7wJVwX/+Y+6Eh1zZJjr5cVFzPrzjGshb6bwNMjd1it6TCZpZKCs8GHXd1S+CH/ 0/pwj9pWKDKTvrYF1lmfPQb7hdn5UoBh+4HARIsIf1Dm+GbF+CqYd4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; q=dns; s=selector1; b=B3lQD0iWCz665J8 wsXJCPxaFhVCnhVm6y58Gbl2imIGtDTowouowvN+aggCSukhJv/vxeazKxDPrr8F 5ot7iet/hYd7202uhOg/wuwfFFtYPHVo8/j8jhnVrCwkF2bwEGJHtLYKsebIVfCu J8X8lzcemSYLKpQtOf60nFyZHSQU= Received: from dhcp-10-61-103-155.cisco.com (173-38-208-169.cisco.com [173.38.208.169]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by banjo.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 97376635F; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 01:12:00 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0CD99A68-80D3-4F42-84CE-2E9D7BEE3FDC"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\)) From: Ole Troan In-Reply-To: <5359C237.2030007@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 10:11:57 +0200 Message-Id: <7191C279-B1B5-496A-BE5F-7A051D5E0FD4@employees.org> References: <53422B8F.2020109@ericsson.com> <5359C237.2030007@gmail.com> To: Tom Taylor X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/x10Ox2kCbH5NYjhaFNR83FeylUY Cc: softwires@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07 X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 08:13:23 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_0CD99A68-80D3-4F42-84CE-2E9D7BEE3FDC Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Tom, > I'm a bit late on this, but it comes from trying to sort out what the = underlying information will look like as Diameter AVPs coming from AAA. = This is just a question for clarification. >=20 > As indicated in Section 5, bullet 1 of the MAP-E document, a MAP CE = can be provisioned with multiple End-user IPv6 prefixes, each associated = with its own Basic Mapping Rule. >=20 > If I read things correctly in section 5.1 of = draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07.txt, there are two cases: > (1) Multiple domains: multiple instances of OPTION_S46_CONT_MAPE will = be present. >=20 > (2) Single domain, multiple subnets: multiple instances of = OPTION_S46_RULE will be present within a single instance of = OPTION_S46_CONT_MAPE. >=20 > In either case, the correlation between the End-user IPv6 prefix and = its corresponding Basic Mapping Rule is achieved through longest match. = A good CPE implementation will validate that there is a 1-1 = correspondence between the BMRs and the provisioned End-user IPv6 = prefixes. >=20 > Is my understanding correct? yes, I believe so. although for (2) multiple End-user IPv6 prefixes is independent of = multiple rules. there will be exactly one BMR per MAP domain. cheers, Ole --Apple-Mail=_0CD99A68-80D3-4F42-84CE-2E9D7BEE3FDC Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJTWhjOAAoJEFuJXizso86gQaQH/0pPW3UPGZN/17OqBBCfhmjS nRGMncQuqtfP/WUJZVE2ZTFcPOtIjghDtFcjv6LznxBJ7e9koLnQzo5SZG8F2mP/ qL+CkFxp09Im9XdahTXiCXb8+snprKHlzRd2jUZiSQGlhQ+YYi51FWRJ/2pCqiPI DOni2hhtbGBBk+XvJGHgZIa6dZzmcASuroFCrHryM7MbcVVU0zLRSjcNUbL51i5H vm2Klh4Mgh2iL4l4/zql0NWAQQkrBtCU8PrQD0QcSzA3xT49LIRGhjHlr3pc8NCP E3GTV8Zdpyd9ihPEazfuizq0D/bB9O2VM158hQaSi2SbxmBiztkrE4w+lxmfQqA= =5sR4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_0CD99A68-80D3-4F42-84CE-2E9D7BEE3FDC-- From nobody Fri Apr 25 05:43:22 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 634111A048D for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 05:43:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hQuFKW5QHubh for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 05:43:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.18]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 799F41A04B9 for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 05:43:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ians-mbp.lan ([62.225.30.33]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LcBvB-1XNDZH0hOf-00jXgn; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:42:58 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\)) From: Ian Farrer In-Reply-To: <6C83D36F-7895-4994-A141-9B425EB7BBEA@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 14:42:55 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <53422B8F.2020109@ericsson.com> <37A243DD-5249-4070-AB19-6DFFCFE17AA7@gmx.com> <92E51E75-2914-421F-B222-7478EC3D6A02@cisco.com> <5A8EDE2F-EA28-4991-B94F-A998701FD662@gmx.com> <6C83D36F-7895-4994-A141-9B425EB7BBEA@cisco.com> To: Ole Troan X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874) X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:ClYF2hwSUPhbeLo9DAMm2jBz62nwuTkQdsUda57NNdAzcU3s2K4 ncplDRFpXmSxbVldBq+ftWJLujmxJemgBLVHboOsI2EYDqErdUr/e3WXZDnrxor/IyLlSua nuSST+cYVVNlNkjxJKtiQcJwE29XKs/zPMKwz5cDvrueZEv1d8/+ysQOHoRN6UTTU3S+L4p xRH02/5mprkHgnr+yp3Tg== Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/5kaR9sf0k-MSovwqicla-0WSHms Cc: Softwires WG , Yong Cui Subject: Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-07 X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 12:43:16 -0000 Hi Ole, So the whole paragraph would read: When receiving the Port Parameters option with an explicit PSID, the client MUST use this explicit PSID in configuring its softwire = interface. The Port Parameters option with an explicit PSID MUST be discarded=20 if the softwire node isn't configured with a full IPv4 address (e.g. = IPv4 prefix). If so, fine with me. Cheers, Ian On 24 Apr 2014, at 10:15, Ole Troan wrote: > Ian, >=20 >> When receiving the Port Parameters option with an explicit PSID, the >> client MUST use this explicit PSID in configuring its softwire = interface. >> If the client=92s IPv4 address (configured via a separate sub-option)=20= >> is not 32 bit-long, the Port Parameters option MUST be discarded. =20 >> For MAP-E and MAP-T clients, the formula for the address length check >> is "prefix4-len + ea-len =3D 32=94 and serves to ensure that the = explicit >> PSID is only applied to configurations with a completely formed IPv4 = address. >=20 > I don't like the implications that IPv4 address can be !=3D 32 bits. = ;-) >=20 > just simply: >=20 > The Port Parameters option with an explicit PSID MUST be discarded if = the softwire node isn't configured with a full IPv4 address (e.g. IPv4 = prefix). >=20 > ? >=20 > cheers, > Ole >=20 From nobody Mon Apr 28 02:30:35 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 375861A0786 for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 02:30:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.852 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.852 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d3XpXwRL_9HO for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 02:30:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 740E11A0707 for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 02:30:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BDP07114; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 09:30:28 +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 14.3.158.1; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:28:56 +0100 Received: from SZXEMA410-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.42) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:30:06 +0100 Received: from SZXEMA512-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.124]) by SZXEMA410-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.42]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 17:29:59 +0800 From: "Zhouqian (Cathy)" To: "Nobo Akiya (nobo)" , "draft-tsou-softwire-bfd-ds-lite@tools.ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Mail regarding draft-tsou-softwire-bfd-ds-lite Thread-Index: Ac9aQnAh6MBF9X6xTia1JEN4vf3AgQIUsJGg Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 09:29:58 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.66.76.105] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/57dByJLRk_Os99fwZClYp9EEyNU Cc: "softwires@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Softwires] Mail regarding draft-tsou-softwire-bfd-ds-lite X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 09:30:34 -0000 Hi Nobo, Sorry for late reply. Please see inline. Best Regards, Cathy > -----Original Message----- > From: Softwires [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Nobo Aki= ya > (nobo) > Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 9:56 PM > To: draft-tsou-softwire-bfd-ds-lite@tools.ietf.org > Cc: softwires@ietf.org > Subject: [Softwires] Mail regarding draft-tsou-softwire-bfd-ds-lite >=20 > Hi Authors, >=20 > Couple of questions around proposed the BFD solution. >=20 > 1. Is the goal for B4 to detect [lack of] reachability to AFTR? Or does t= he goal > include AFTR to keep state of which B4s are *speaking to it*? It depends on specific technology, e.g., if PCP is used, AFTR does not keep= the state of which B4s it is speaking to . But if some bidirectional technology is used, e.g., BFD, AFTR will keep the= state. >=20 > 2. It's fairly clear how BFD session can be instantiated/maintained on B4= (to > AFTR). However, I'm not clear on how BFD sessions are > instantiated/maintained on AFTR (to B4s). Is there some sort of automatic > mechanism, or is this configured? BFD sessions could be sent from AFTR only after B4 firstly initiated the se= ssion. So the answer is that this is configured. >=20 > -Nobo >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > Softwires@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires From nobody Mon Apr 28 15:00:48 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A94C1A8834 for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 15:00:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.152 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.152 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U_0gFMAdl7V4 for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 15:00:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54F281A6FB7 for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 15:00:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2208; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1398722441; x=1399932041; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=5ataxQGHh8xkM+PQycLIGIgm3LE7XUK1sQcT0DDBalY=; b=MsB2Yfdf0DL9OfVlZUqq/p1vU2iZ+C4b9eXo5kqYXssgQjrzOn6+wvJY CpBFvpQLiDUpI8GLA3H9P95s5bZVLh/Z2jVVswl8o5AzIMf4pytYz3NB8 nslhs4yFjqnq+64PtEMMd26MFVu99XC6dk3k2d88UHxhSWACs7uQ/ilZu M=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgcFAH3OXlOtJA2G/2dsb2JhbABZgmUhT1e9MYZoUYEbFnSCJQEBAQQBAQE3NAsMBAIBCBEEAQELFAkHJwsUCQgBAQQBDQUIE4gmAQzIYxMEjggBAR4xBwaDHoEVBKtqgzGBcjk X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,946,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="39470202" Received: from alln-core-12.cisco.com ([173.36.13.134]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Apr 2014 22:00:41 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com [173.37.183.75]) by alln-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s3SM0fX9021296 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 28 Apr 2014 22:00:41 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com ([fe80::747b:83e1:9755:d453]) by xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([173.37.183.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 17:00:41 -0500 From: "Nobo Akiya (nobo)" To: "Zhouqian (Cathy)" , "draft-tsou-softwire-bfd-ds-lite@tools.ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Mail regarding draft-tsou-softwire-bfd-ds-lite Thread-Index: Ac9aQnAh6MBF9X6xTia1JEN4vf3AgQIUsJGgACVWE4A= Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 22:00:40 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [161.44.212.215] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/_tOHyar0V-YwwLQCFNhOG5i9z-c Cc: "softwires@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Softwires] Mail regarding draft-tsou-softwire-bfd-ds-lite X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 22:00:44 -0000 Hi Cathy, Thanks for replies on both of my questions. Your answers align exactly with= my understanding of the proposed. There's a new work brewing in the BFD WG: S-BFD. That might fit nicely to y= our needs: single-sided continuity check (from B4) where AFTR can remain st= ateless (no need to configure BFD sessions on AFTR for each B4). https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-base/ -Nobo > -----Original Message----- > From: Zhouqian (Cathy) [mailto:cathy.zhou@huawei.com] > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 5:30 AM > To: Nobo Akiya (nobo); draft-tsou-softwire-bfd-ds-lite@tools.ietf.org > Cc: softwires@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Mail regarding draft-tsou-softwire-bfd-ds-lite >=20 > Hi Nobo, > Sorry for late reply. Please see inline. >=20 > Best Regards, > Cathy >=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Softwires [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Nobo > > Akiya > > (nobo) > > Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 9:56 PM > > To: draft-tsou-softwire-bfd-ds-lite@tools.ietf.org > > Cc: softwires@ietf.org > > Subject: [Softwires] Mail regarding draft-tsou-softwire-bfd-ds-lite > > > > Hi Authors, > > > > Couple of questions around proposed the BFD solution. > > > > 1. Is the goal for B4 to detect [lack of] reachability to AFTR? Or > > does the goal include AFTR to keep state of which B4s are *speaking to = it*? >=20 >=20 > It depends on specific technology, e.g., if PCP is used, AFTR does not ke= ep > the state of which B4s it is speaking to . > But if some bidirectional technology is used, e.g., BFD, AFTR will keep t= he > state. > > > > 2. It's fairly clear how BFD session can be instantiated/maintained on > > B4 (to AFTR). However, I'm not clear on how BFD sessions are > > instantiated/maintained on AFTR (to B4s). Is there some sort of > > automatic mechanism, or is this configured? > BFD sessions could be sent from AFTR only after B4 firstly initiated the > session. So the answer is that this is configured. > > > > -Nobo > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Softwires mailing list > > Softwires@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires From nobody Mon Apr 28 22:48:07 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B49231A886F for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 22:48:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.901 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AfSnZXrbV2lU for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 22:48:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usevmg20.ericsson.net (usevmg20.ericsson.net [198.24.6.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 621FF1A885E for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 22:48:05 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c618062d-f79c96d000001cfc-1e-535eee7f0f7b Received: from EUSAAHC003.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.81]) by usevmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 69.1B.07420.F7EEE535; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 02:12:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from EUSAAMB107.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.124]) by EUSAAHC003.ericsson.se ([147.117.188.81]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 01:48:03 -0400 From: Suresh Krishnan To: Softwires WG Thread-Topic: Consensus call for text describing MAP-E lw4o6 relationship Thread-Index: Ac9jbZs3kvNWXNX2Saa0CZg+KO1vVw== Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 05:48:02 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1 x-mozilla-draft-info: internal/draft; vcard=0; receipt=0; DSN=0; uuencode=0 fcc: imap://lmcsukr@mail.eamcs.ericsson.se/Sent x-identity-key: id1 x-account-key: account2 x-ms-exchange-imapappendstamp: EUSAAHC008.ericsson.se (14.03.0151.000) x-originating-ip: [147.117.188.12] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrKIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyuXRPoG79u7hgg69/TCx+bEm2OLxsK5MD k8eSJT+ZPI5/fsscwBTFZZOSmpNZllqkb5fAlbHkR2bBb56KSy0LWRsYL3B1MXJySAiYSHzc /Z4JwhaTuHBvPVsXIxeHkMBRRom7M56ygySEBJYzSnybaQhiswE1bNj5GaxBREBV4snOB0AN HBzMAk4Sl97agISFBVwkrv/bwwJR4inR8vg0I4StJzHlfTcziM0C1Hp43RmwMbwCvhKXz31j BbEZgW74fmoNWJxZQFzi1pP5ULcJSCzZc54ZwhaVePn4H1i9qECExOqGnWwQcW+JCzO62SHO 1JeY+/AIVK+wRNPbrVC2uMS+WQ0sELabxOw1vxkhbCWJOa+vMUPs1ZFYsPsTG4RtLfF79zpW CFtbYtnC18wQNwtKnJz5hGUCo/QsJKfOQtI+C0n7LCTts5C0L2BkXcXIUVqcWpabbmSwiREY r8ck2HR3MO55aXmIUYCDUYmHl3FZZLAQa2JZcWXuIUZpDhYlcd6CL7HBQgLpiSWp2ampBalF 8UWlOanFhxiZODilGhjtKmPXXtafdndf+6WTt4uOb62bP3nN31DpMwzx1z7vE6tav8H0j2YC v4rZh+1nfv0XPh7oXZJcvEb21uxP0aqhXd8j4joPLLm7vOyPR/yZO9fu91V5+h7ZfMslr+Jh c9lhZ8PovccyZ04Qut4+Y0Kx/j32s3wXo/wv5aQq7P6Qcv1auqR3G+cuJZbijERDLeai4kQA ujresbgCAAA= Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/cLt7GggQxWxnv2Ot3zq_qylHLQY Cc: "Yong Cui \(cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn\)" Subject: [Softwires] Consensus call for text describing MAP-E lw4o6 relationship X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 05:48:06 -0000 Hi all, The following text was added to version -08 of the lw4over6 draft to des= cribe the relationship between MAP-E and lw4over6.=20 "Lightweight 4over6 is a solution designed specifically for complete architecture only. It does not offer direct, meshed IPv4 independence between IPv6 subnet prefix and IPv4 address with or connectivity between subscribers without packets traversing the AFTR. without IPv4 address sharing. This is accomplished by maintaining If this type of meshed interconnectivity is required, state for each softwire (per-subscriber state) in the central lwAFTR [I-D.ietf-softwire-map] provides a suitable solution. and a hub-and-spoke forwarding architecture. [I-D.ietf-softwire-map] also offers these capabilities or, alternatively, allows for a reduction of the amount of centralized state using rules to express IPv4/IPv6 address mappings. This introduces an algorithmic relationship between the IPv6 subnet and IPv4 address. This relationship also allows the option of direct, meshed connectivity between users." There was an implicit expectation that similar text (pretty much reversing = the order in which the mechanisms are described) would be added to the MAP-= E draft as well. In order to do so, we need to do a short consensus check.= =20 If you believe such text is useful and should be added to the MAP-E draft a= s well please respond to this mail to say so. On the other hand, if you bel= ieve such text is *not useful* and should be instead removed from the lw4ov= er6 draft, please respond and say so as well. This call will conclude on 6t= h May 2014. Thanks Suresh & Yong From nobody Mon Apr 28 23:31:20 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DC321A884F; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 23:31:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eozHUbLp62EL; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 23:31:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A04CE1A8836; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 23:31:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 5.4.1 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Message-ID: <20140429063116.17169.45361.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 23:31:16 -0700 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/Qoqe_2-Frv-8MmP4XPsN6EqSbzg Cc: softwires@ietf.org Subject: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-05.txt X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 06:31:17 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Softwires Working Group of the IETF. Title : DS-Lite Management Information Base (MIB) Authors : Yu Fu Sheng Jiang Jiang Dong Yuchi Chen Filename : draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-05.txt Pages : 22 Date : 2014-04-28 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 Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite). The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib/ There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-05 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-mib-05 Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From nobody Tue Apr 29 17:56:04 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 708C71A09A8 for ; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 17:56:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.852 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.852 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pMomcV6gOwtl for ; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 17:56:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8583A1A099E for ; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 17:55:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BGF81482; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 00:55:57 +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 14.3.158.1; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 01:54:41 +0100 Received: from SZXEMA407-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.72.39) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 01:55:56 +0100 Received: from SZXEMA512-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.124]) by SZXEMA407-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.82.72.39]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 08:55:51 +0800 From: "Zhouqian (Cathy)" To: "Nobo Akiya (nobo)" , "draft-tsou-softwire-bfd-ds-lite@tools.ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Mail regarding draft-tsou-softwire-bfd-ds-lite Thread-Index: Ac9aQnAh6MBF9X6xTia1JEN4vf3AgQIUsJGgACVWE4AAOQREAA== Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 00:55:50 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.66.76.105] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/Yp8eAQStUnKMmlZMw5csAR3gBVk Cc: "softwires@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Softwires] Mail regarding draft-tsou-softwire-bfd-ds-lite X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 00:56:02 -0000 Hi Nobo, Thanks for the pointer. We will consider referring to this document in the = next version. Best Regards, Cathy > -----Original Message----- > From: Nobo Akiya (nobo) [mailto:nobo@cisco.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 6:01 AM > To: Zhouqian (Cathy); draft-tsou-softwire-bfd-ds-lite@tools.ietf.org > Cc: softwires@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Mail regarding draft-tsou-softwire-bfd-ds-lite >=20 > Hi Cathy, >=20 > Thanks for replies on both of my questions. Your answers align exactly wi= th my > understanding of the proposed. >=20 > There's a new work brewing in the BFD WG: S-BFD. That might fit nicely to= your > needs: single-sided continuity check (from B4) where AFTR can remain > stateless (no need to configure BFD sessions on AFTR for each B4). >=20 > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-base/ >=20 > -Nobo >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Zhouqian (Cathy) [mailto:cathy.zhou@huawei.com] > > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 5:30 AM > > To: Nobo Akiya (nobo); draft-tsou-softwire-bfd-ds-lite@tools.ietf.org > > Cc: softwires@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: Mail regarding draft-tsou-softwire-bfd-ds-lite > > > > Hi Nobo, > > Sorry for late reply. Please see inline. > > > > Best Regards, > > Cathy > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Softwires [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > > > Nobo Akiya > > > (nobo) > > > Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 9:56 PM > > > To: draft-tsou-softwire-bfd-ds-lite@tools.ietf.org > > > Cc: softwires@ietf.org > > > Subject: [Softwires] Mail regarding draft-tsou-softwire-bfd-ds-lite > > > > > > Hi Authors, > > > > > > Couple of questions around proposed the BFD solution. > > > > > > 1. Is the goal for B4 to detect [lack of] reachability to AFTR? Or > > > does the goal include AFTR to keep state of which B4s are *speaking t= o it*? > > > > > > It depends on specific technology, e.g., if PCP is used, AFTR does not > > keep the state of which B4s it is speaking to . > > But if some bidirectional technology is used, e.g., BFD, AFTR will > > keep the state. > > > > > > 2. It's fairly clear how BFD session can be instantiated/maintained > > > on > > > B4 (to AFTR). However, I'm not clear on how BFD sessions are > > > instantiated/maintained on AFTR (to B4s). Is there some sort of > > > automatic mechanism, or is this configured? > > BFD sessions could be sent from AFTR only after B4 firstly initiated > > the session. So the answer is that this is configured. > > > > > > -Nobo > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Softwires mailing list > > > Softwires@ietf.org > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires From nobody Tue Apr 29 18:21:36 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23CA31A09BA for ; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 18:21:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.152 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.152 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2Oo1aQBKaUxF for ; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 18:21:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1901C1A09B6 for ; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 18:21:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3380; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1398820890; x=1400030490; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=nLGoh4AUsva5TzKMZawY24c8dGXoUw5OBaGdNfS8vD0=; b=Npwn7NMjopaXdRAFxwTuuEHCBX5WG3B/kit8pcaMx7FktfrM5Fs7YPkP H8D763Vfvp37MfcOTONaP++yHzIhvAoez8jS8BEtaaEsNNrcXgUexR2Ga bdnOndzZTH7KvnK1u0Q8bdk4kfKS8igtl4C14FUuCOAE5vY+ssPFUm1jy 4=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlEFABZPYFOtJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABZgmUhT1e9aYZoUYEmFnSCJQEBAQQBAQE3NAsMBAIBCBEEAQELFAkHJwsUCQgBAQQBDQUIE4gmAQzJdxMEjX4BAR4xBwaDHoEVBKtzgzGBcjk X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,955,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="39852424" Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Apr 2014 01:21:29 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com [173.37.183.75]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s3U1LTsL030281 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 30 Apr 2014 01:21:29 GMT Received: from xmb-aln-x01.cisco.com ([fe80::747b:83e1:9755:d453]) by xhc-rcd-x01.cisco.com ([173.37.183.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 20:21:29 -0500 From: "Nobo Akiya (nobo)" To: "Zhouqian (Cathy)" , "draft-tsou-softwire-bfd-ds-lite@tools.ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Mail regarding draft-tsou-softwire-bfd-ds-lite Thread-Index: Ac9aQnAh6MBF9X6xTia1JEN4vf3AgQIUsJGgACVWE4AAOQREAAAA1Uvw Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 01:21:28 +0000 Message-ID: References: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.86.244.77] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/F6svQ0OMuztxrZ4qWimQQV1CK1c Cc: "softwires@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [Softwires] Mail regarding draft-tsou-softwire-bfd-ds-lite X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: softwires wg discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 01:21:33 -0000 Hi Cathy, Thank you for considering my thoughts. Please do reach out to S-BFD authors or the BFD WG list if you have any que= stions around its functionality. -Nobo > -----Original Message----- > From: Zhouqian (Cathy) [mailto:cathy.zhou@huawei.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 8:56 PM > To: Nobo Akiya (nobo); draft-tsou-softwire-bfd-ds-lite@tools.ietf.org > Cc: softwires@ietf.org > Subject: RE: Mail regarding draft-tsou-softwire-bfd-ds-lite >=20 > Hi Nobo, > Thanks for the pointer. We will consider referring to this document in th= e > next version. >=20 > Best Regards, > Cathy >=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Nobo Akiya (nobo) [mailto:nobo@cisco.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2014 6:01 AM > > To: Zhouqian (Cathy); draft-tsou-softwire-bfd-ds-lite@tools.ietf.org > > Cc: softwires@ietf.org > > Subject: RE: Mail regarding draft-tsou-softwire-bfd-ds-lite > > > > Hi Cathy, > > > > Thanks for replies on both of my questions. Your answers align exactly > > with my understanding of the proposed. > > > > There's a new work brewing in the BFD WG: S-BFD. That might fit nicely > > to your > > needs: single-sided continuity check (from B4) where AFTR can remain > > stateless (no need to configure BFD sessions on AFTR for each B4). > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-akiya-bfd-seamless-base/ > > > > -Nobo > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Zhouqian (Cathy) [mailto:cathy.zhou@huawei.com] > > > Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 5:30 AM > > > To: Nobo Akiya (nobo); > > > draft-tsou-softwire-bfd-ds-lite@tools.ietf.org > > > Cc: softwires@ietf.org > > > Subject: RE: Mail regarding draft-tsou-softwire-bfd-ds-lite > > > > > > Hi Nobo, > > > Sorry for late reply. Please see inline. > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > Cathy > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Softwires [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > > > > Nobo Akiya > > > > (nobo) > > > > Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 9:56 PM > > > > To: draft-tsou-softwire-bfd-ds-lite@tools.ietf.org > > > > Cc: softwires@ietf.org > > > > Subject: [Softwires] Mail regarding > > > > draft-tsou-softwire-bfd-ds-lite > > > > > > > > Hi Authors, > > > > > > > > Couple of questions around proposed the BFD solution. > > > > > > > > 1. Is the goal for B4 to detect [lack of] reachability to AFTR? Or > > > > does the goal include AFTR to keep state of which B4s are *speaking= to > it*? > > > > > > > > > It depends on specific technology, e.g., if PCP is used, AFTR does > > > not keep the state of which B4s it is speaking to . > > > But if some bidirectional technology is used, e.g., BFD, AFTR will > > > keep the state. > > > > > > > > 2. It's fairly clear how BFD session can be > > > > instantiated/maintained on > > > > B4 (to AFTR). However, I'm not clear on how BFD sessions are > > > > instantiated/maintained on AFTR (to B4s). Is there some sort of > > > > automatic mechanism, or is this configured? > > > BFD sessions could be sent from AFTR only after B4 firstly initiated > > > the session. So the answer is that this is configured. > > > > > > > > -Nobo > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Softwires mailing list > > > > Softwires@ietf.org > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires