That sounds like you want to do IPv4 over IPv6. Do you think carriers will
build an IPv6-only NGC at this point in time?
Dino
> On Mar 20, 2018, at 6:33 PM, Satoru Matsushima
> wrote:
>
> Next header type maybe?
> Interestingly GTP-U doesn’t have it.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> 2018/03/20 1
Next header type maybe?
Interestingly GTP-U doesn’t have it.
Sent from my iPhone
2018/03/20 18:17、Dino Farinacci のメール:
> How? Please summarize in one sentence and don’t me to a draft.
>
> Dino
>
>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 10:24 AM, Satoru Matsushima
>> wrote:
>>
>> Yes , supports IPv4 PDU with
How? Please summarize in one sentence and don’t me to a draft.
Dino
> On Mar 20, 2018, at 10:24 AM, Satoru Matsushima
> wrote:
>
> Yes , supports IPv4 PDU with minimum effort.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> 2018/03/20 16:47、Lyle Bertz のメール:
>
>> I did not get to ask but I know your presentatio
BTW 5G Rel-15 doesn’t support IPv4v6 type session. But Docomo is trying to get
back v4v6 to the updated Rel-15 stage 2 spec.
I don’t know why.
> 2018/03/20 16:47、Lyle Bertz のメール:
>
> I did not get to ask but I know your presentation talks about IPv6 but is
> there a requirement to support IPv4
Yes , supports IPv4 PDU with minimum effort.
Sent from my iPhone
2018/03/20 16:47、Lyle Bertz のメール:
> I did not get to ask but I know your presentation talks about IPv6 but is
> there a requirement to support IPv4 mobile or dual stack?
>
> Lyle
___
d
I did not get to ask but I know your presentation talks about IPv6 but is
there a requirement to support IPv4 mobile or dual stack?
Lyle
___
dmm mailing list
dmm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
Hi,
I update the draft with some minor editorial fixes, mainly to the pseudo code
part. These are mainly breaking long lines so that they do not exceed the 72nd
column.
You can continue addressing draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-13 for WGLC review
- there are no other modifications.
Thanks a
I agree with Sri. However the aim is to have the WG to reference this draft as
part of the response back to 3GPP.
Different contenders are welcomed to participate and provide analysis and
comparsion.
Arashmid
From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
Sent: T
Thanks authors,
Actually this draft sounds interesting for me. Some points for that are
following:
1. Utilizing existing control plane for distributed mobility functions.
2. Those mobility functions could be programmed through some interface, i.e: FPC
3. I’d see some similarity with MFA ideas.
4
Hi Tom,
Inline.
Cheers,
Pablo.
From: Tom Herbert
Date: Sunday, 18 March 2018 at 16:28
To: "Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)"
Cc: dmm , Uma Chunduri
Subject: Re: [DMM] some test results of different network overlay methods
On Sun, Mar 18, 2018, 1:40 PM Pablo Camarillo (pcamaril)
mailto:pcama...@ci
ILA-NAT-GW, or Locator-Rewrite Function ,,,should all work I guess.
Sri
On 3/20/18, 4:42 AM, "Marco Liebsch" wrote:
>What about naming it nicely locator re-writing? Which is what it does and
>community reacts differently
>on certain terms such as NAT..
>
>marco
>
>-Original Message-
My questions are if must describe these concepts in a training class to a
group of network operations personnel:
1. What term would the conversation devolve to?
2. What would one say to distinguish it from NAT in a manner that is
acceptable to the trainees in the class (you've answered that Tom)?
3
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 11:47 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <
sgund...@cisco.com> wrote:
> Not sure I agree Behcet. Generally, the distributed mobility management
> charter does cover optimizations in user-plane and control plane. But, for
> now, lets not discuss if this is in scope for this WG, o
Not sure I agree Behcet. Generally, the distributed mobility management charter
does cover optimizations in user-plane and control plane. But, for now, lets
not discuss if this is in scope for this WG, or not. Lets focus on technical
discussions.
Sri
From: Behcet Sarikaya mailto:sarikaya2...@
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) <
sgund...@cisco.com> wrote:
> > [KB] I will let Sri answer this.
>
> Nothing specific to MFA draft, but I will make a general comment.
>
>
> If there is consensus to adopt draft-bogineni as a WG document, and if
> this work becomes pa
What about naming it nicely locator re-writing? Which is what it does and
community reacts differently
on certain terms such as NAT..
marco
-Original Message-
From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
Sent: Dienstag, 20. März 2018 12:40
To: Tom Herber
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 4:37 AM, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)
wrote:
> Tom:
>
>> ILA is not NAT! :-)
>
> As seen from the end point, I agree ILA is not NAT. But, that the function
> that is needed at two places where you do translation of the addresses
> from SIR to LOCATOR, or LOCATOR to SIR is a NA
But, in any case, NAT is not such a bad word, its just that it pushed IPv6
deployments out by 20 years.
Sri
On 3/20/18, 4:37 AM, "dmm on behalf of Sri Gundavelli (sgundave)"
wrote:
>Tom:
>
>> ILA is not NAT! :-)
>
>As seen from the end point, I agree ILA is not NAT. But, that the function
>that
Tom:
> ILA is not NAT! :-)
As seen from the end point, I agree ILA is not NAT. But, that the function
that is needed at two places where you do translation of the addresses
from SIR to LOCATOR, or LOCATOR to SIR is a NAT function, and you have a
mapping state similar to NAT state. That¹s a NAT :-
Kalyani,
Thanks so much.
Lyle
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 11:14 AM, Bogineni, Kalyani <
kalyani.bogin...@verizonwireless.com> wrote:
> Lyle:
>
>
>
> Thank you for your comments. The document is still work-in-progress. The
> future revisions will address your comments.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* dmm [mailt
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 3:57 AM, Lyle Bertz wrote:
> We'll be quite time constrained during this session so I thought I would ask
> a couple of simple questions which I hope have already been addressed in
> previous e-mails:
>
> 1. Figures 14 & 15 are described as options and do not include an SMF
> [KB] I will let Sri answer this.
Nothing specific to MFA draft, but I will make a general comment.
If there is consensus to adopt draft-bogineni as a WG document, and if this
work becomes part of the WG charter, I would think the document should include
all IETF proposals under discussion fo
Lyle:
Thank you for your comments. The document is still work-in-progress. The future
revisions will address your comments.
From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lyle Bertz
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 6:57 AM
To: dmm
Subject: [E] Re: [DMM] draft-bogineni-dmm-optimized-mobile-u
We'll be quite time constrained during this session so I thought I would
ask a couple of simple questions which I hope have already been addressed
in previous e-mails:
1. Figures 14 & 15 are described as options and do not include an SMF.
However, Figures 16 & 17 do. It is a bit confusing. Are 1
Authors:
This draft is under WGLC. We were not expecting you guys to post an update
during LC period.
Please let the WG know about the changes in version -18.
WG: Please post WGLC comments on version 13 and not on -14.
Thanks
Sri
On 3/19/18, 7:21 AM, "dmm on behalf of internet-dra...@ietf.or
25 matches
Mail list logo