Hi Dan,
Inline please,
2011/9/27 Dan Wing dw...@cisco.com
-Original Message-
From: Hui Deng [mailto:denghu...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 11:01 PM
To: Dan Wing
Cc: teemu.savolai...@nokia.com; satoru.matsush...@gmail.com;
ietf@ietf.org; softwi...@ietf.org;
inline please,
2011/9/27 Dan Wing dw...@cisco.com
-Original Message-
From: teemu.savolai...@nokia.com [mailto:teemu.savolai...@nokia.com]
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 11:14 PM
To: dw...@cisco.com; satoru.matsush...@gmail.com; ietf@ietf.org
Cc: softwi...@ietf.org;
Hi,
So, with more detailed comments below, I think the key thing I'm still
struggling with finding a way to articulate is the distinction between:
. assignment/(re)delegation of responsibility
. offloading work
I think the proposal addresses the second. I believe the real
On Sep 28, 2011 2:51 AM, Hui Deng denghu...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Dan,
Inline please,
2011/9/27 Dan Wing dw...@cisco.com
-Original Message-
From: Hui Deng [mailto:denghu...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 11:01 PM
To: Dan Wing
Cc: teemu.savolai...@nokia.com;
Brian:
And to be clear, I (still the previous IETF Chair) think that
some such change is needed, which is exactly why I wrote the
above draft in 2006. Perhaps the difference is that I see
the IAOC/Trust role as very hard to separate from the IETF Chair
role - but more easily separable from
-Original Message-
From: Hui Deng [mailto:denghu...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 2:52 AM
To: Dan Wing
Cc: teemu.savolai...@nokia.com; satoru.matsush...@gmail.com;
ietf@ietf.org; softwi...@ietf.org; beh...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Last Call:
-Original Message-
From: Cameron Byrne [mailto:cb.li...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 8:16 AM
To: Hui Deng
Cc: softwi...@ietf.org; beh...@ietf.org; teemu.savolai...@nokia.com;
ietf@ietf.org; Dan Wing
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] Last Call: draft-ietf-behave-v4v6-bih-06.txt
+1 ... since the alternative is that apps that require ipv4 sockets and
pass ipv4 literals are stranded on ipv6 only networks.
Running code on the n900 shows that nat464 provides real user and
network benefit
Frankly, I preferred it when you were running IPv6-only without BIH on your
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Mark Townsley m...@townsley.net wrote:
+1 ... since the alternative is that apps that require ipv4 sockets and
pass ipv4 literals are stranded on ipv6 only networks.
Running code on the n900 shows that nat464 provides real user and
network benefit
Frankly,
On Sep 28, 2011, at 2:12 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
In the end (as well as IPv6-only near term in mobile), IP version
agnostic apps will prove to be more reliable and therefore will get
more market share.
Not clear. There's a tradeoff between the additional reliability of being
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) raj...@cisco.com wrote:
Hi Cameron,
Very interesting ( clever indeed).
How does this clever code ensure that all but a few (pesky apps)
continue to use IPv6 interface instead of the NAT46 interface?
Rajiv,
DNS64 is used. So anything
On 2011-09-29 04:24, Russ Housley wrote:
Brian:
And to be clear, I (still the previous IETF Chair) think that
some such change is needed, which is exactly why I wrote the
above draft in 2006. Perhaps the difference is that I see
the IAOC/Trust role as very hard to separate from the IETF
Yes, there's no doubt that the IESG needs to have strong input into
IASA decisions; there is no way round that. But it isn't clear to me
that this must be the IESG Chair's job, if we had a model where the
IETF Chair and IESG Chair were two different people. As long as it's
one person, this is a
On 09/28/2011 17:55, John Levine wrote:
I would rather have somebody show up at my meetings who has delegated
authority, enough time to pay attention and think about the issues,
and a good working relationship with the chair than insist that a
harried chair call in and mute his phone so
All,
I propose to completely remove section 5 of this draft.
The reason:
The IETF should *NOT* document any comment on any multiple standards
developed by other SDOs which are outside of the IETF's scope.
Especially standards like like SONET/SDH, CDMA/GSM.
The current text reflects the
The IESG has received a request from the Global Routing Operations WG
(grow) to consider the following document:
- 'Time to Remove Filters for Previously Unallocated IPv4 /8s'
draft-ietf-grow-no-more-unallocated-slash8s-03.txt as a BCP
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks,
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'PIM Multi-Topology ID (MT-ID) Join Attribute'
(draft-ietf-pim-mtid-10.txt) as a Proposed Standard
This document is the product of the Protocol Independent Multicast
Working Group.
The IESG contact persons are Adrian Farrel and Stewart Bryant.
A
82nd IETF Meeting
Taipei, Taiwan
November 13-18, 2011
Host: Taiwan Network Information Center (TWNIC)
Host Website: http://ietf82.tw/
Meeting venue: Taipei International Convention Center (TICC)
http://www.ticc.com.tw/index_en.aspx
Register online at:
18 matches
Mail list logo
