Re: [Softwires] Softwire interim meeting preliminary agenda
Hello Chairs, I fully agree with Dan's proposal for bashing interim meeting agenda on the following two regards, and thereby raising 3 questions towards current agenda somewhere where against these two regards. Regard 1: Promote stuffs that we can make educated and informed decisions. Q1: Why http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-softwire-stateless-requiremen ts-00, is off the agenda list? IMO, this is something exactly deals with fundamental requirements for the design of all stateless 4/6 solutions, thereby helping us moving forward to decide working direction. Q2: Why http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-deng-v6ops-aplusp-experiment-results-01 , is off the agenda list? which would offer first-hand information we educated and learnt from pioneer stateless 4/6 solution deployment. Regard 2: Focus on comparisons between approaches instead of going into bits of *only one* of them. Q3: Why http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite-01, is on the list, while the http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-zhou-softwire-b4-nat-02.txt, which works on exactly the same direction, is off the list? Curious about the reasons and thanks to your answers in advance! Cheers, Xiaohong -Original Message- From: softwires-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alain Durand Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 8:37 AM To: softwires@ietf.org; Yong Cui Subject: [Softwires] Call for presentations for the interim meeting As we mentioned earlier, the softwire interim meeting will focus on 'stateless solutions'. If you'd like to present there, please send the chairs a note by Friday this week. After seeing a bunch of replies to this request, I have a feeling of unease. We -- the IETF -- need to reach some decisions on the direction we're going to move forward. To do that, we need comparisons so we can make educated and informed decisions. Documents like draft-bsd-softwire-stateless-port-index-analysis and draft-dec-stateless-4v6 are on the right track -- I hope we can discuss them in more detail prior to the interim. Can the chairs and presenters please consider spending a majority of the interim meeting discussing the merits of different approaches, rather than presentations of how-this-Internet-Draft-encodes-bits-on-the-wire? Wishing for a fruitful Softwire interim meeting, -d ___ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
Re: [Softwires] RE : Analysis of Port Indexing Algorithms (draft-bsd-softwire-stateless-port-index-analysis)
Hi Behcet, It is part of the service provider business to offer services which rely on the 0-1023 range even in a shared address environment (e.g., host an FTP server, etc.). Because statically not all subscribers use these features, the whole 0-1023 range may be assigned only to few subscribers (whether this is on-demand or during the service subscription, is out of scope of what we are doing here). As such, the ability to assign or not that port range should be left to each SP and not excluded by default. We analyzed two types of algorithms in draft-bsd: * algorithms which exclude by construction that range. * algorithms which leave excluding that range to the SP: i.e., the algorithm allows to generate a port range including the 0-1023 but the SP may decide to not assign it to any requesting user. This should be part of the SP policies. Cheers, Med De : Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:sarikaya2...@gmail.com] Envoyé : mardi 20 septembre 2011 08:36 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP Cc : Softwires-wg Objet : Re: RE : [Softwires] Analysis of Port Indexing Algorithms (draft-bsd-softwire-stateless-port-index-analysis) Hi Med, I thought excluding well known ports is good idea because all nodes need it. Below you seem to agree that sharing them may be useless. Why is it service provider issue? It seems like address sharing changes the basic characteristic of the port number space :-). Regards, Behcet On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 2:38 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.commailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: Hi Behcet, Excluding 0-4095 range is not justified in those documents. Excluding by default this range may be considered by some service providers as waste of ports. Excluding 0-1023 range may be understood by port utilisation fairness but still be considered as an inefficiency if it is excluded by the algorithm and not let to the taste of service providers to assign or not that range. Sharing the 0-1023 between several users may be useless (e.g. is valid scenario to assign port 80 without port 443?). Cheers, Med -Message d'origine- De : Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:behcetsarik...@yahoo.commailto:behcetsarik...@yahoo.com] Envoyé : vendredi 16 septembre 2011 17:02 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP Cc : Softwires-wg Objet : Re: RE : [Softwires] Analysis of Port Indexing Algorithms (draft-bsd-softwire-stateless-port-index-analysis) Hi Med, Another question: On page 19, you have: The limit of 0-4095 ports appears rather arbitrary and represents a likely waste of ports, if not more that an operator may be interested in utilizing. Why? Shouldn't they be excluded? Regards, Behcet ___ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
