Isn't AERO becoming an RFC already? Regards,
Behcet On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Templin, Fred L <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Sri, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 1:40 PM >> To: Templin, Fred L; Brian Haberman; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [DMM] draft charter text updates in github.. >> >> 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. > > I have code that, while not pretty, is astonishingly simple. > I should be able to release that very soon. > > Thanks - Fred > [email protected] > >> Any case, its WG/Chairs/AD call, but works for me. >> >> >> Regards >> Sri >> >> >> On 6/19/14 1:34 PM, "Templin, Fred L" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >Hi Sri, >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) [mailto:[email protected]] >> >> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 1:32 PM >> >> To: Templin, Fred L; Brian Haberman; [email protected] >> >> 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 >> >[email protected] >> > >> >> 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 _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
