Hi Fred, > Or, have IPv4 built-in from the onset for free; wouldn't that be better?
Cannot say without understanding the solution approach and the needed effort. But, I guess with AERO, you have some effort in mind. Any case, its WG/Chairs/AD call, but works for me. Regards Sri On 6/19/14 1:34 PM, "Templin, Fred L" <fred.l.temp...@boeing.com> wrote: >Hi Sri, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com] >> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 1:32 PM >> To: Templin, Fred L; Brian Haberman; dmm@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [DMM] draft charter text updates in github.. >> >> Hi Fred, >> >> Ack on the AERO capability. > >OK. > >> 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. > >Or, have IPv4 built-in from the onset for free; wouldn't that >be better? > >Thanks - Fred >fred.l.temp...@boeing.com > >> Regards >> Sri >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 6/19/14 12:54 PM, "Templin, Fred L" <fred.l.temp...@boeing.com> >>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 >> >fred.l.temp...@boeing.com >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:sgund...@cisco.com] >> >> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 12:33 PM >> >> To: Templin, Fred L; Brian Haberman; dmm@ietf.org >> >> 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" <fred.l.temp...@boeing.com> >> >>wrote: >> >> >> >> >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
