Peng,
Now there are actually 3 directions for IPv4-over-IPv6 mechanisms,
they have respective application scenarios, pros and cons.
1)stateless, 4rd, MAP
2)per-flow stateful: DS-Lite
3)per-user stateful: public 4over6, lightweight 4over6
As Ole said, the problem is that, do we want
Hi Woj,
Your comment is valid.
The point I wanted to make is to recall the initial motivation of this draft:
solve an issue raised by DS-Lite people.
Evidently, the proposed approach can be deployed in any 4-6-4 scenario. This
will be reflected in the updated version of the draft.
Cheers,
Ole,
btw, one thing that appears most complicated is provisioning; currently it
looks like L4over6 suggests using 2 DHCP sessions and 3 DHCP options to get
provisioned. firstly a RFC6334 exchange to get the DS-lite tunnel up, then a
DHCPv6 option for the DHCPv4 server address, and then a
Peng,
On 8 June 2012 11:35, Peng Wu pengwu@gmail.com wrote:
Ole,
btw, one thing that appears most complicated is provisioning; currently
it looks like L4over6 suggests using 2 DHCP sessions and 3 DHCP options to
get provisioned. firstly a RFC6334 exchange to get the DS-lite tunnel up,
2012/6/7, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com mohamed.boucad...@orange.com:
Dear Dapeng,
Please see inline.
Cheers;
Med
-Message d'origine-
De : softwires-boun...@ietf.org
[mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de liu dapeng
Envoyé : mardi 5 juin 2012 10:49
À : Yong Cui
Cc :
Dear Dapeng,
Please see inline.
Cheers,
-Message d'origine-
De : liu dapeng [mailto:maxpass...@gmail.com]
Envoyé : vendredi 8 juin 2012 13:49
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP
Cc : Yong Cui; softwires@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [Softwires] WG last call on
Peng,
2012-06-07 à 16:04, Peng Wu:
Hi Ole and all,
Thank you all for the discussions on this topic, as well as sharing
your opinions during the offline discussions in the last couple of
days. Let me try to summarize.
I understand that we MAY adapt MAP to be 4over6-like, or even DS-lite
Re-,
On 6/5/2012 Tuesday 9:09 PM, Simon Perreault wrote:
On 2012-06-04 22:13, Jacni Qin wrote:
Section 6.1 introduces IGMP/MLD translation, but I fear it is very
underspecified. Our own effort at specifying IGMP/MLD translation is
in draft-perreault-mboned-igmp-mld-translation. I feel that
Hi Med,
I agree with Woj.
I do not favor moving this draft to somewhere else.
Instead this draft should be revised to make it
Multicast extensions to DS-Lite as in the charter.
There is enough time to do it.
Regards,
Behcet
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 3:43 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
On 6/8/2012 8:34 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
Hi Med,
I agree with Woj.
I do not favor moving this draft to somewhere else.
Instead this draft should be revised to make it
Multicast extensions to DS-Lite as in the charter.
There is enough time to do it.
As this draft shows though, one can
Med,
I'm glad we are in synch. That's exactly what I suggested Peng to do it.
We can a single sentence in L46 to the effect:
If a full public IPv4 is given through DHCP no port set support is needed
on CPE or concentrator. It is still up to the CPE if it wants to do NAT or
not. Many DC scenarios
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Stig Venaas s...@venaas.com wrote:
On 6/8/2012 8:34 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
Hi Med,
I agree with Woj.
I do not favor moving this draft to somewhere else.
Instead this draft should be revised to make it
Multicast extensions to DS-Lite as in the charter.
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Softwires Working Group of the IETF.
Title : Mapping of Address and Port (MAP)
Author(s) : Ole Troan
Wojciech Dec
Hi Ole,
In your previous Email you wrote,
in MAP you do all of that with one single DHCPv6
option...
IMHO, that's because the one DHCPv6 option contains so many KINDS of
information (e.g. PSID, BR's prefix or address, see draft of
map-dhcp-option ).
And with separate provisoning processes ,
Hi Reinado,
IMHO, both MAP(Mapping of Address and PORT ) and lw4over6 DO NOT
design to deal with full Ipv4 address case originally. In many
senarios, users(like campanies, governments, ICPs and so on ) JUST
want full addresses instead of shared addresses. It is more
reasonable to have Public
15 matches
Mail list logo
