Hi Fred, Ack on the AERO capability.
I have come to the conclusion that I have to deal with IPv4 for the rest of my career (assuming some left). Surely, some day in 2016 is not some thing that I'm looking at. My point is to limit the solution scope and if it happens that DMM solution is immensely successful, we can introduce IPv4 interfaces in phases. Regards Sri On 6/19/14 12:54 PM, "Templin, Fred L" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi Sri, > >I will just repeat that AERO works equally well on IPv4-only, IPv6-only >and dual-stacked access networks. This means that it can address real >world use cases today that cannot be addressed by other mechanisms. > >As to schedule, who can truly say when IPv4 will be totally gone from >all access networks? 2016 is just a date on a calendar; we have been >waiting for IPv6 to fully replace IPv4 since about 1994, and AFAICT >it still hasn't happened. > >Thanks - Fred >[email protected] > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 12:33 PM >> To: Templin, Fred L; Brian Haberman; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [DMM] draft charter text updates in github.. >> >> Hi Fred, >> >> The DMM WG is still discussing PS and the related issues. By the time we >> adopt a solution and complete the work, we will surely be in 2016. So, >>is >> it not safer to raise the bar and limit certain interfaces to IPv6-only >>? >> I'm not arguing against adding any support for IPv4, but IMO the bar >> should be high. We can certainly support all possible types of networks, >> IPv4-only transport, IPv4-only user plane, and IPv4-only services. But, >> looking at our current pace and doing some extrapolation, its safe to >>say >> we will bake this for a long time and so limiting the work scope IMO >> helps. But, this is just my opinion/comment and personally don't care if >> some one wants to do the work and the chairs/AD/WG agree with it. Also, >>I >> do not know yet how much of the solution work will really be IP-version >> dependent. Mostly some network interfaces and there IPv6 possibly is a >> safe assumption. >> >> >> Regards >> Sri >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 6/19/14 11:30 AM, "Templin, Fred L" <[email protected]> >>wrote: >> >> >Hi Sri, >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: dmm [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli >> >>(sgundave) >> >> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 11:20 AM >> >> To: Brian Haberman; [email protected] >> >> 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 >> >[email protected] >> > >> >> Regards >> >> Sri >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 6/18/14 8:43 AM, "Brian Haberman" <[email protected]> >>wrote: >> >> >> >> >Hi Fred, >> >> > >> >> >On 6/18/14 11:25 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote: >> >> >> 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." >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >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 >> >> [email protected] >> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm > _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
