Le 2012-03-23 à 10:28, Ole Trøan a écrit :
Yiu,
I have to admit that I am not IPv6 protocol expert. I guess Remi took the
fragmentation header and overload it for his design. Say he defines a new
extension called transition extension, I would guess it would no longer
overload the
2012-03-19 11:44, Maoke:
2012/3/19 Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net
Le 2012-03-19 à 10:21, Maoke a écrit :
2012/3/19 Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net
Le 2012-03-19 à 09:16, Maoke a écrit :
2012/3/16 Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net
Maoke,
Let me try a more complete picture
All, you are cordially invited.
Francis Dupont, Paul Selkirk and Alain Durant are hosting a live demo of
draft-penno-softwire-sdnat-02.
The following will be shown:
1) Stateless DS-Lite
2) Stateless CPE B4 NAT
3) Anycast Failover
4) DHCPv4 proxy over v6
5) NAT Port range
Le 2012-03-19 à 11:44, Maoke a écrit :
2012/3/19 Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net
Le 2012-03-19 à 10:21, Maoke a écrit :
2012/3/19 Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net
Le 2012-03-19 à 09:16, Maoke a écrit :
2012/3/16 Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net
Maoke,
Durand with a 'd' (as sensible as Dupont with a 't' :-)!
Francis Dupont fdup...@isc.org
___
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
Hi Alain,
Same question I raised in the other thread.
1) So this table is fully static, and we don't consider user entering
or leaving which may affect the bindings. Instead, the bindings only
rely on the addresses which won't change along the time.
2) Then this falls in the manner of
Great. So ISC already has DHCPv4 over IPv6 implementation now.
//Pity I couldn't make it on Sunday.
2012/3/25 Alistair Woodman awood...@isc.org:
All, you are cordially invited…
Francis Dupont, Paul Selkirk and Alain Durant are hosting a live demo of
draft-penno-softwire-sdnat-02.
The
Sounds like a logical step forward.
This should be an applicability statement for the Mboned-defined AF for a 4-6-4
network scenario.
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 23, 2012, at 11:02 AM, Lee, Yiu yiu_...@cable.comcast.com wrote:
Good feed back. We started to address dslite and like what you said
Hi Alain,
Thanks a lot for your explaination. It is much clearer now. Please see
inline ~~
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Alain Durand adur...@juniper.net wrote:
On Mar 23, 2012, at 4:22 AM, Qiong wrote:
Dear Alain and all,
I'm trying to understand sd-nat-02 and I'm still wondering
On Mar 24, 2012, at 1:56 PM, Peng Wu wrote:
Hi Alain,
Same question I raised in the other thread.
1) So this table is fully static, and we don't consider user entering
or leaving which may affect the bindings. Instead, the bindings only
rely on the addresses which won't change along the
On Mar 24, 2012, at 6:11 PM, Qiong wrote:
\ I'm trying to understand sd-nat-02 and I'm still wondering how to setup
subscriber-based binding table in sd-nat. In my understanding, a totally static
binding table will introduce a lot of workload for operators.
Not necessarily. Operators maintain
The per subscriber mapping table looks like:
Subscriber ID (usually IPv6 address of CPE)
Assigned IPv4 public address (the one assigned by DHCPv4 over IPv6)
port range
Alain
On Mar 23, 2012, at 2:26 PM, Lee, Yiu wrote:
Hi Alain,
Quick question. What snag suggests to keep in the customer
Thanks for the demo.
Would you please also give a summary to the mailing list, especially for
someone who cannot join the demo.
Yong
From: Alistair Woodman awood...@isc.org
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 09:37:53 -0700
To: softwires@ietf.org
Cc: fdup...@isc.org
Subject: [Softwires] Demo of
2012/3/20 Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net
Le 2012-03-19 à 16:12, Maoke a écrit :
2012/3/20 Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net
Le 2012-03-19 à 15:30, Maoke a écrit :
2012/3/19 Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net
Le 2012-03-19 à 11:38, Maoke a écrit :
...
let me draw
dear Remi,
2012/3/24 Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net
Le 2012-03-22 à 15:40, Maoke a écrit :
dear Alain, Yong, Ralph and all,
in program, the effort of the MAP team should be respected. The formation
of the MAP team was also the consensus of our meeting in beijing and we
have seen
Hi Alain,
Thanks. It really helps.
Configuration for every IPv6 subscriber, not every possible IPv6 address in
the various /64
This is actually not that bad. Compare to BNGs that do the same and more
today for IPv4 or IPv6.
In the end, this is about clustering subscribers on groups of
16 matches
Mail list logo
