The principle is good, details are not:
- only switched (giga) Ethernets were used (no wireless)
- the PCP should get double arrow
- all SD-B4s run a PCP/NAT-PMP/UPnP-GID-v1+v2 server
(in fact they have the same kind of softwares, the laptop just offers
more tools, 1 times larger
With the checksum re-computed, as per the rfc6145 option, translated IPv6
packets would get the right checksum. With 4rd-u so far I see no such
option.
-Woj.
On 23 March 2012 14:55, Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net wrote:
Hi, Wojciech,
Are you suggesting that T would work with IPv4
Le 2012-03-26 à 11:08, Wojciech Dec a écrit :
With the checksum re-computed, as per the rfc6145 option, translated IPv6
packets would get the right checksum. With 4rd-u so far I see no such option.
Are you saying that, when original IPv4 packets have null UDP checksums, MAP-T
would REQUIRE
Hi, Remi,
I get some questions about the 4rd-u draft.
1) The tunnel packet defined in your draft includes an IPv6 header followed
by a IPv6 fragmentation. Can this packet be defined as a tunnel packet or a
translation packet or neither or both? Since this is not the traditional
tunneling
Hi Francis,
i work out a topology of your system according to your description, and
hopes to help those who can't make it to your demo with a quick understanding
of the system.
Please correct me if i'm missing anything or misunderstanding your points.
The attachment is the txt
Hi, authors of 6rd MIB,
I get some comments about 6rd MIB draft.
1) You mentioned the tunnelIfXTable in section 5.2. I think it is a good idea
to extend the tunnel MIB, some scenario cannot be included in RFC4087, such as
point to multi-point tunnel like softwire mesh.
2) It seems you miss
On 26 March 2012 13:34, Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net wrote:
Le 2012-03-26 à 11:08, Wojciech Dec a écrit :
With the checksum re-computed, as per the rfc6145 option, translated IPv6
packets would get the right checksum. With 4rd-u so far I see no such
option.
Are you saying that,
In your previous mail you wrote:
Today, if a user generates a packet using an illegal IPv4 source address,
what would we do? We could drop the packet silently by doing
source-verify. So, tomorrow if a user use illegal port, IMHO AFTR should
drop the packet silently.
= it is a bit
Hi, all,
With some co-authors of the 4rd-U proposal, we will hold an informal meeting
about it.
- subject: Clarification on what 4rd-U is designed to do, and how it does it.
- Participants: whoever is interested in a good understanding of the 4rd-U
proposal.
- place: room 204
- time :
Dear WG Co-Chairs,
I looked at your arguments in this email here and Softwaire WG agenda you
proposed on Wed and Fri, I am kind of confusing, hope you can clarify:
There are several drafts discussed in Wed agenda which basically solved
same problem as we discussed in Friday and they are all
Maoke,
I like your analog of horse, donkey, and donkorse! and fully agree with you.
People know what kind of situation horse and donkey can help to solve the
problem. People do not want unknown donkorse because it creates more
problem rather than solving specific problem.
Kevin Yin
Hi, Remi,
This is beyond the charter of softwire WG, changing IPv6 address format
needs much broad discussion in IETF community to understand its impact
first, before we should even discuss if it is valid to design something
like this in softwire. Have you done that ?
Best Regards,
Kevin Yin
dear Remi,
i know you are very busy in Paris, but please respond to this thread.
again, if i made anything wrong, please don't hesitate to point out.
thanks!
best,
maoke
2012/3/26 Maoke fib...@gmail.com
dear Remi,
i think you won't be against if i change the subject of this specific
i wonder if remote participation (skype, jabber room, etc.) is available or
not. - maoke
2012/3/26 Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net
Hi, all,
With some co-authors of the 4rd-U proposal, we will hold an informal
meeting about it.
- subject: Clarification on what 4rd-U is designed to do,
As a member of the MAT DT, I am naturally biased in favor of what Xing, Maoke
and Ole said.
I also think that the chair's questions are not adequate. I don't think that
the questions should be which of document the wg choose, make documents to be
unified or not. I think that it should be what
Le 2012-03-27 à 02:38, Maoke a écrit :
dear Remi,
i know you are very busy in Paris,
Indeed.
but please respond to this thread.
Response coming.
Could you be less impatient? (There is also a night here, which is time to
rest!)
RD
again, if i made anything wrong, please don't
Dear Maoke,
Thanks for clarifying what you meant.
I now understand that you were referring to applications that might require
IPv4 dialogue between one link apart nodes.
Whether this is a real use case in the MAP-4rd context remains however to be
seen.
Here are my immediate comments:
a) This
17 matches
Mail list logo
