Re: [Int-area] intarea charter

Absolutely. I think that Int-area as a forum is to me more meaningful than IntArea WG is where certain documents will be advanced. Maybe other areas like TSV have specific reasons to create a WG like TSVWG which has lots of documents, I don't see the same in Int-Area. I think that people

Re: [Int-area] intarea charter

+1 Regards, Behcet - Original Message From: Suresh Krishnan suresh.krish...@ericsson.com To: Jari Arkko jari.ar...@piuha.net Cc: Internet Area int-area@ietf.org Sent: Mon, October 12, 2009 10:28:19 AM Subject: Re: [Int-area] intarea charter Hi Jari, On 09-10-12 11:18 AM,

Re: [Int-area] [MEXT] Rethink on Mobile IPv6

Hi Raj,   I agree that basic MIP6 should not have RO feature, just like PMIPv6. I think in basic MIP6 we should define an IP entity close to MN, like AR. Again like PMIPv6. Regards, Behcet - Original Message From: basavaraj.pa...@nokia.com basavaraj.pa...@nokia.com To:

Re: [Int-area] End-to-end address transparency

Hi, Remi, On 10/01/2011 05:30 a.m., Rémi Després wrote: End-to-end transparency in the sense that every node will be reachable from every node? The e2e transparency that IPv4 had lost, and IPv6 restores, is ADDRESS transparency: source and destination addresses seen by a

Re: [Int-area] Call for confirming adoption of draft-boucadair-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis-04 as intarea working group draft

+1 Behcet On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Fred Baker f...@cisco.com wrote: From my perspective, the draft addresses the right set of issues. I personally am concerned about asking host vendors (or for that matter NAT and proxy vendors) to do extra work to keep IPv4 running; I'm personally

[Int-area] FMC Final Date Time: Tuesday

IETF could not find us an appropriate room so as a result we will hold FMC meeting at the original time. Details are below: Tuesday March 27 at 19:30 or 7:30 Meet at Hotel Concorde Lobby Take a look at the materials at the link given below. On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Behcet Sarikaya

[Int-area] Announcing fmc mailing list

A new list has been created for fixed mobile convergence (FMC) discussions, f...@ietf.org. If interested, please subscribe the list using this link: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fmc Regards, Behcet Dirk ___ Int-area mailing list

Re: [Int-area] ACTION REQUIRED: Extending working group last call for draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis-02

Support. Regards, Behcet On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Suresh Krishnan suresh.krish...@ericsson.com wrote: Hi all,  The WGLC on this draft ended with no comments at all. In this context, we cannot assume that silence equates to consent. In order for this draft to progress, we need

Re: [Int-area] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis

Hi Suresh, On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Suresh Krishnan suresh.krish...@ericsson.com wrote: Hi Brian, Thanks for the review. I wanted to clarify three points that you raised and I will ask the authors take care of the rest. On 02/11/2013 04:11 PM, Brian Haberman wrote: 7. In

Re: [Int-area] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis

Hi Suresh, On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Suresh Krishnan suresh.krish...@ericsson.com wrote: Hi Behcet, On 02/12/2013 05:57 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: Hi Suresh, On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Suresh Krishnan suresh.krish...@ericsson.com mailto:suresh.krish...@ericsson.com

Re: [Int-area] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis

Hi Med, On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:43 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: ** Hi Behcet, I have two comments: * Host identification issue is valid for any address sharing mechanism. I am not sure on A+P? A+P requires point-to-point link, right? This is why the introduction mentions

Re: [Int-area] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis

-- *De :* Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:sarikaya2...@gmail.com] *Envoyé :* mercredi 13 février 2013 18:01 *À :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN *Cc :* Suresh Krishnan; Brian Haberman; draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analy...@tools.ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org *Objet :* Re: [Int-area] AD

Re: [Int-area] AD evaluation: draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analysis

-- *De :* Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:sarikaya2...@gmail.com] *Envoyé :* mercredi 13 février 2013 20:09 *À :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN *Cc :* Suresh Krishnan; Brian Haberman; draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analy...@tools.ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org *Objet :* Re: [Int-area] AD evaluation: draft-ietf

Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-nachum-sarp-06.txt

+1 Regards, Behcet On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Sheng Jiang jiangsh...@huawei.com wrote: Support the adoption. This document has targeted a real issue and proposed a workable solution. Regards, Sheng -Original Message- From: int-area-boun...@ietf.org

Re: [Int-area] request to consider sponsoring http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios-04

On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu wrote: On 3/7/2014 1:30 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: Hi Joe, On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Joe Touch to...@isi.edu mailto:to...@isi.edu wrote: Brian, Although I don't disagree with the points below, it's useful

Re: [Int-area] request to consider sponsoring http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios-04

Hi Brian, On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: a) Since this is fixing some of the damage done by NAT, it's really unfinished business for BEHAVE, which if iirc was a Transport Area WG. Just saying... b) The word privacy doesn't appear in

Re: [Int-area] Call for adoption of draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios-04

Hi Ted, On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com wrote: On Jul 23, 2014, at 8:11 AM, Eggert, Lars l...@netapp.com wrote: I wanted to repeat my comment from the meeting. Given that at least in my read of RFC6967, there exist to sane mechanism to even exchange host IDs

Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?

Hi Tom, On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Tom Herbert t...@herbertland.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Templin, Fred L fred.l.temp...@boeing.com wrote: Hi Lucy, -Original Message- From: Lucy yong [mailto:lucy.y...@huawei.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 7:48 AM To:

Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Tom Herbert t...@herbertland.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Behcet Sarikaya sarikaya2...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Tom Herbert t...@herbertland.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Behcet Sarikaya sarikaya2

Re: [Int-area] Why combine IP-in-UDP with GUE?

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Tom Herbert t...@herbertland.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Behcet Sarikaya sarikaya2...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Tom, On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Tom Herbert t...@herbertland.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Templin, Fred L

Re: [Int-area] [trill] Fwd: Mail regarding draft-ietf-trill-over-ip

Hi Xiaohu, Joe, On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 10:19 PM, Xuxiaohu xuxia...@huawei.com wrote: Hi Joe, I'm wondering whether your proposal as below is also applicable to other UDP-based encapsulation approaches which have not yet considered doing fragmentation on the tunnel layer, such as GENEVE,

Re: [Int-area] Upcoming NomCom season

As one of your chairs (now ex- already), I welcome you in the technical area and maybe we can write drafts jointly :-) Regards, Behcet On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com wrote: On 03/07/2015 03:24, Warren Kumari wrote: On Thursday, July 2, 2015,

Re: [Int-area] ILA and int-area

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Joel M. Halpern wrote: > I do not think classic Internet tunnels (e.g. IP in IP or GRE) are a good > comparison for ILA. The ILA mapping requires dynamic knowledge about the > remote end. (One of the things that is important about ILA is

Re: [Int-area] ILA and int-area

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Tom Herbert wrote: > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Joel M. Halpern > wrote: > > If we want the documents to be informational, then it should be about a > > context where we understand how to build the surrounding

Re: [Int-area] FW: IP-not-v10

LX is 60 in Roman numbers, so it is 10 times 6 :) Behcer On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Khaled Omar wrote: > > -Original Message- > From: Khaled Omar > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 6:34 PM > To: 'Templin, Fred L' > Subject: RE: [Int-area] IP-not-v10

Re: [Int-area] 回复： Request a WG adoption call for draft-xu-intarea-ip-in-udp

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 10:22 PM, 徐小虎(义先) wrote: > It doesn't matter whether or not it's already there. IMHO, given the > popularity of different overlay technologies such as VXLAN and MPLS-in-UDP > in practice, GUE initially and mainly targeted as a DC overlay

Re: [Int-area] [DMM] New draft posted: Anchorless mobility management through hICN (hICN-AMM): Deployment options

Luca, On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 3:46 AM, Luca Muscariello < luca.muscarie...@gmail.com> wrote: > These solutions are not all isomorphic and comparison requires some > careful taxonomy first. > The -01 version of the draft Kalyani is taking care of will include that > and will definitely help to

Re: [Int-area] [DMM] New draft posted: Anchorless mobility management through hICN (hICN-AMM): Deployment options

h to the other, rather exploiting in > the combination the advantages of both ones. > > > I don't understand. SRv6 is tunneling technique while hICN is talking about anchoress mobility. Did I get something wrong? Behcet > Giovanna > ------ > *From:* Int-area on

Re: [Int-area] [ih] Fwd: Existing use of IP protocol 114 (any 0-hop protocol)

On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 7:02 PM John Gilmore wrote: > Protocol 114 was unassigned in RFC 1700 in Oct 1994, which was the last > RFC tabulating protocol assignments. In January 2002, RFCs ceased being > published for protocol number assignments, according to RFC 3232. > Sometime before Feb 1999,

Re: [Int-area] [saag] 3rd WGLC (limited-scope): draft-ietf-tsvwg-transport-encrypt-15, closes 29 June 2020

+1 I think it is a good draft, out of very hard work, a lot of sweat. Behcet On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 10:10 AM Joseph Touch wrote: > -1 > > Although it’s understandable to describe “what operators do”, the IETF > isn’t a news service. We typically summarize these behaviors to take a > position

Re: [Int-area] Suggestion to move draft-olteanu-intarea-socks as Independent Submissions

Hi Eric, I am sure you know, all independent Submission documents can only be published as Informational. I did not check what status the authors wish to have but it is good to mention here. Regards, Behcet On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 7:55 AM Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote: > Vladimir, Dragos, > > >

Re: [Int-area] Suggestion to move draft-olteanu-intarea-socks as Independent Submissions

g to do so. > > > > Best, > > Adrian > > > > *From:* Int-area *On Behalf Of *Eric Vyncke > (evyncke) > *Sent:* 15 January 2021 15:52 > *To:* sarik...@ieee.org > *Cc:* int-area@ietf.org; dragos.nicule...@cs.pub.ro > *Subject:* Re: [Int-area] Suggestion

Re: [Int-area] The small address use case in FlexIP

Hi Stewart, Thanks for your analysis. I haven't read the drafts you mentioned but I thought that the address size issue was long resolved with the IPv6: basically it matters on the wireless medium and this is solved by the so-called ROHC RObust Header Compression, which is adapted by 5G and it

Re: [Int-area] New Version Notification for draft-lhan-problems-requirements-satellite-net-00.txt

On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 12:18 PM Lin Han wrote: > Hi, Hesham > > > > Thanks for the info. > > The reference from prof. Mark has been given in the draft as > [UCL-Mark-Handley] (sec. 7.2.2), the paper has demonstrated that satellite > relay can achieve shorter latency than ground fiber network

Re: [Int-area] New Version Notification for draft-sarathchandra-tactile-internet-00.txt

To Intarea chairs, I was glancing through the mails on this draft and related ones. It seems like the issue discussed is or very similar to those already being discussed in IRTF. So spend WG time on this? Behcet On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 4:23 AM Dirk Trossen wrote: > Hi Chathura, > > Please see

Re: [Int-area] FW: New Version Notification for draft-lhan-problems-requirements-satellite-net-00.txt

Hi Lin, Thanks for this interesting work. I don't understand why the ID link is so complicated? Why not just submit it on the datatracker? Behcet On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 7:41 PM Lin Han wrote: > Hi, > > This draft analyzed the problems and requirements for the satellite > network when it is

Re: [Int-area] Using ISO8473 as a network layer to carry flexible addresses

On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 2:08 PM Brian E Carpenter < brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Toerless, > On 02-Mar-21 04:33, Toerless Eckert wrote: > > It is somewhat ironic to see how it was IP and IPv6 that where the > protocols that where > > successfully enhanced with additional adress

Re: [Int-area] New draft: The IETF Will Continue Maintaining IPv4 (draft-schoen-intarea-ietf-maintaining-ipv4)

+1 Behcet On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 3:32 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > +1 > > > El 15/3/22, 21:05, "Int-area en nombre de Brian E Carpenter" < > int-area-boun...@ietf.org en nombre de brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> > escribió: > > Hi, > > > Please let us know if you have any questions

Re: [Int-area] Welcome to join the SAVNET BoF meeting on Thursday

On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 10:05 AM wrote: > Dear all, > > > > The SAVNET BoF (source address validation for intra-domain and > inter-domain networks) will be held on Thursday. I am writing this letter > to invite colleagues from the INT-AREA WG who have interests on this topic > to join the BoF.

Re: [Int-area] IP parcels

Hi Folks, Thanks Christian for explaining how GSO/GRO are used by Quic implementations. So the use is not mandated in Quic RFCs but rather used in implementations. I found this presentation by Intel:

Re: [Int-area] What is in a name - draft-ietf-intarea-schc-ip-protocol-number

On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 5:17 AM tom petch wrote: > From: Robert Moskowitz > Sent: 05 April 2023 18:58 > > The origin draft only was discussing SCHC as an IP Protocol Number. > > At IETF115, the attendees agreed that the draft needs to be expanded to > also SCHC as an Ethertype and as a UDP Port

Re: [Int-area] [EXTERNAL] Re: draft-chroboczek-intarea-v4-via-v6 - "IPv4 routes with an IPv6 next hop"

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 2:23 PM Warren Kumari wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 12:08 PM, Herbie Robinson < > herbie.robin...@stratus.com> wrote: > >> I think the ICMP problem needs to be addressed. Perhaps with an IPv4 >> option to embed the identity of the router (IPv6 address or some