Sri, Let me be perfectly clear - AERO works equally well whether the access network is IPv4-only, IPv6-only, or dual-stacked. That is an advantage, and addresses real-world use cases. Hence, I do not think it should be discouraged by the charter.
Thanks - Fred fred.l.temp...@boeing.com > -----Original Message----- > From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Templin, Fred L > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 11:30 AM > To: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave); Brian Haberman; dmm@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [DMM] draft charter text updates in github.. > > Hi Sri, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli > > (sgundave) > > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 11:20 AM > > To: Brian Haberman; dmm@ietf.org > > Subject: Re: [DMM] draft charter text updates in github.. > > > > Agree. We should ensure the base solution supports IPv6 transport and user > > sessions. Optionally, support for IPv4 can be allowed on certain > > interfaces, but clearly should not deal with IPv4, NAT's or allow > > IPv4-only solutions. > > I don't understand that. In my enterprise, I have IPv4-only wireless > access points yet there are IPv6 services within the enterprise. When > I switch over to 4G wireless, I again get IPv4-only access but again > there are IPv6 services within the enterprise. > > If the mobility management mechanism supports IPv6 over IPv4 tunneling > (possibly including NATs in the path), then the use case is satisfied; > otherwise, the use case is not satisfied. > > Thanks - Fred > fred.l.temp...@boeing.com > > > Regards > > Sri > > > > > > > > On 6/18/14 8:43 AM, "Brian Haberman" <br...@innovationslab.net> wrote: > > > > >Hi Fred, > > > > > >On 6/18/14 11:25 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote: > > >> Hi Jouni, > > >> > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > >>> From: Jouni Korhonen [mailto:jouni.nos...@gmail.com] > > >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:00 AM > > >>> To: Templin, Fred L; dmm@ietf.org > > >>> 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." > > >> > > > > > >The above has been a part of the DMM charter for a long time. Taking it > > >out would appear to be opening the door for IPv4-only solutions. My > > >assessment of the winds within the community is that people are not > > >interested in new protocols for IPv4. > > > > > >Just my opinion... > > > > > >Brian > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > dmm mailing list > > dmm@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > dmm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
