Hi Behcet, > -----Original Message----- > From: Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:sarikaya2...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 2:08 PM > To: Templin, Fred L > Cc: Sri Gundavelli (sgundave); Brian Haberman; dmm@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [DMM] draft charter text updates in github.. > > Isn't AERO becoming an RFC already?
We already have RFC6706 as an experimental RFC, but I am working on a (bis) that will obsolete that: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-aerolink/ The (bis) does not currently have a wg home, so I thought I would check to see if dmm would be a good home for it. Thanks - Fred fred.l.temp...@boeing.com > Regards, > > Behcet > > On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 3:53 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 1:40 PM > >> To: Templin, Fred L; Brian Haberman; dmm@ietf.org > >> 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 > > fred.l.temp...@boeing.com > > > >> 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 _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
