Hi Jouni, > -----Original Message----- > From: Jouni Korhonen [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:00 AM > To: Templin, Fred L; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DMM] draft charter text updates in github.. > > Fred, > > It is true IPv4 is there (and will be for a long time). Although the > charter does emphasize IPv6 as the base solution it does not prohibit > adding IPv4 support. It is just we can accept an IPv6-only solution as a > valid & complete solution from DMM point of view.
However, a solution that works equally well whether the access networks are IPv6-only, dual-stack, or IPv4-only has clear advantages in terms of near-term deployment in real networks. Therefore, I think the charter is currently saying _too much_. My new proposal is simply to strike the following two sentences: "DMM solutions are primarily targeted at IPv6 deployments and should not be required to support IPv4, specifically in situations where private IPv4 addresses and/or NATs are used. IPv6 is assumed to be present in both the mobile host/router and the access networks." Thanks - Fred [email protected] > - Jouni > > 6/16/2014 7:53 PM, Templin, Fred L kirjoitti: > > Hi Jouni, > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Jouni Korhonen [mailto:[email protected]] > >> Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 9:41 AM > >> To: Templin, Fred L; [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: [DMM] draft charter text updates in github.. > >> > >> Fred, > >> > >> 6/16/2014 5:59 PM, Templin, Fred L kirjoitti: > >>> Hi Jouni, > >>> > >>> What about operation in IPv4-only access networks? There may be > >>> many enterprise networks that offer IPv4-only in their access > >>> networks for the near future, but with IPv6 enabled internally. > >>> For them, we should be able to tunnel IPv6 inside IPv4 if the > >>> mechanism can support it. > >> > >> My personal view is still that IPv4-only access is even more past than > >> "anchoring" ;-) > > > > OK, but I am just telling what I see and it is that IPv4-only > > access in enterprise networks is still a reality today. > > > > Thanks - Fred > > [email protected] > > > >> Anyway, if there is (rough) consensus in the WG for the below new text, > >> so be it. > >> > >> - Jouni > >> > >> > >>> > >>> Here is my suggested re-word: > >>> > >>> OLD: > >>> DMM solutions are primarily targeted at IPv6 deployments and > >>> should not be required to support IPv4, specifically in situations > >>> where private IPv4 addresses and/or NATs are used. IPv6 is > >>> assumed to be present in both the mobile host/router and the > >>> access networks. > >>> > >>> NEW: > >>> DMM solutions are primarily targeted at IPv6 mobile hosts/routers > >>> and should not be required to support IPv4-only mobiles. Access > >>> networks may be IPv6-enabled or IPv4-only, but with IPv6 enabled > >>> in the network core. > >>> > >>> Thanks - Fred > >>> [email protected] > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: dmm [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jouni Korhonen > >>>> Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2014 4:20 AM > >>>> To: [email protected] > >>>> Subject: Re: [DMM] draft charter text updates in github.. > >>>> > >>>> Folks, > >>>> > >>>> Another set of tweaks in github (v12): > >>>> o reminders of Charlie's comments > >>>> o Hidetoshi's comments > >>>> o Georgios' comments > >>>> > >>>> Also milestones got postponed. There is still a bit of my own editing in > >>>> the text so not everything got moved over letter by letter. > >>>> > >>>> - Jouni > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 6/13/2014 2:41 PM, Jouni Korhonen kirjoitti: > >>>>> Folks, > >>>>> > >>>>> New update (v9) available. I added most of the editorials from Charlie > >>>>> (thanks) and the red texts from Alper. > >>>>> > >>>>> The lot debated anchoring term (and milestone) is still there. The > >>>>> milestone does not mention anymore about preserving the mobility > >>>>> sessions and stuff. That would be up to the solution to define. > >>>>> > >>>>> - Jouni > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 6/6/2014 2:47 PM, Jouni Korhonen kirjoitti: > >>>>>> Folks, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Minor changes.. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> https://github.com/jounikor/dmm-re-charter/blob/master/recharter_draft.txt > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> IMHO..the charter as it is today, would allow pretty much any solution > >>>>>> from legacy anchoring to herd of pigeons carrying IP.. ;-) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I have put in editorial changes of my own and clear text proposals > >>>>>> received from others. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> - Jouni > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> dmm mailing list > >>>> [email protected] > >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
