Effective today, I'm stepping down from the position of Softwire wg co-chair.
I'd like to thank all of you that have been participating to this working group
since its
creation in 2006. A lot of very good work came out it.
Ralph Droms, our AD, has started the process to find a replacement.
The chairs and ADs met to look at the results of the consensus call that ended
Wednesday and decide the way forward.
First, we would like to offer a couple observations on the raw results from the
consensus call:
- We had a number of people responding more than once, sometime with different
The poll is now closed. The chairs will get together with the ADs and get back
shortly to the mailing list of what we think the next step is.
Alain.
On Apr 4, 2012, at 5:14 PM, Alain Durand wrote:
Dear Softwire wg members:
At the Paris IETF Softwire meeting, we had presentations on MAP
On Apr 10, 2012, at 10:49 AM, Wojciech Dec wrote:
For some reason, it's also forgotten that WG adoption does not equate to a WG
last call...
Very good point, and thank you for raising it.
If this wg succeed in deciding which document (or document set) to put on
standard track, that is not
Makoe,
The usage of disparaging language does not benefit the clarity of the
discussion.
I understand that english may or may not be your primary language, nor is it
for the majority of the wg members.
I encourage everybody to remain civil in this discourse.
As about implementation, they are
thereof)
on the mailing list. So, If you have not yet expressed your opinion answering
both questions, now is the time to do it.
In IETF tradition, silence is consent.
Alain, Softwires wg co-chair
On Apr 4, 2012, at 5:14 PM, Alain Durand wrote:
Dear Softwire wg members:
At the Paris IETF
On Apr 5, 2012, at 10:22 AM, Rémi Després wrote:
Absence of clear consensus was clear in Paris.
Mailing list is AFAIK appropriate to confirm a consensus, not to quickly mask
a lack of consensus by means of a weird voting procedure.
Remi,
You are correct there was a clear lack of consensus
On Apr 5, 2012, at 12:58 PM, Rémi Després wrote:
Now, one question, assuming for a second that the new procedure would
confirms what we had in the face-to-face meeting, yes to Q1, no consensus to
Q2, what is your current plan?
RD
There are a number of possibilities, but I do not want
Dear Softwire wg members:
At the Paris IETF Softwire meeting, we had presentations on MAP (taken as a
whole) and
4rd-U. We got very strong feedback that we needed to select one
solution to cover that full stateless case, not two, and that we should make
this
decision relatively quickly.
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
database? Port
range info?
Thanks,
Yiu
On 3/23/12 10:06 AM, Alain Durand adur...@juniper.net wrote:
Not necessarily. Operators maintain large database for customers, this is
just one more field there.
The real question is how to propagate this static table to the AFTRs
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 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
On Mar 17, 2012, at 12:44 PM, Qi Sun wrote:
Hi Med,
I've read through the draft-penno-* and IMHO it is reasonable in the
view of deployment. By configuring the profile (i.e. the per-subscriber
mapping table) in the AFTRs, the SPs can achieve an explicit binding between
the IPv4
Dear wg,
After a number of discussions with my co-chair, our AD and various authors,
here is how we would like to move forward wrt 4rd.
1) There is an observation that all the solutions on the table E, T U
actually solve the stateless problem we started with.
There are differences, but
On Mar 14, 2012, at 2:34 PM, Francis Dupont wrote:
In your previous mail you wrote:
However, the draft seems give people impression there is only one NAT
at CPE(i.e. 2.3. Stateless DS-Lite CPE operation) and AFTR is
responsible for decapsulation and IPv4 package validation. Did I miss
Hi Med, see inline response to your questions wrt sd-nat-02
On Mar 13, 2012, at 10:58 AM,
mohamed.boucad...@orange.commailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
mohamed.boucad...@orange.commailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
(*) Question 1: It is not clear in text if there is a second
Please, Remi, do build such a table! That would be very useful.
Alain.
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 2, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net wrote:
Hi Ole,
This kind of table you have below is IMHO the tool we need at this stage :-).
It has however to be more detailed: so
Dear wg,
We now have a number of documents and solutions on the table in the 4rd
category: all the MAP effort, including 4rd-T 4rd-E,
and, somehow separately, the 4rd-U effort. I will claim that there is a very
large overlap between all those solution and somehow small differences.
For the
Remi,
Thank you for starting this discussion on the mailing list.
Let me clarify my chair perspective on 4rd-u
You brought this to the Taipei meeting as an attempt to 'unify' encapsulation
and translation.
I have always been of the opinion that fewer options are better, so I support
attempts
Thank you for the quick review! Hope to see the other 2 reviews coming soon.
Alain.
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 15, 2011, at 5:15 AM, Nejc Škoberne n...@skoberne.net wrote:
Dear authors,
I volunteered yesterday at the Softwires IETF 82 meeting to be one of
the reviewers of your draft. I
Dear Softwires wg,
A couple informations related to our meeting next week.
1- Yong Cui's wife got a baby, so he will not be able to attend the meeting.
After discussing with the ADs, we have decided to ask Ole Troan to help
chairing the Taipei meeting.
2- We have 2 sessions, one on
On Nov 4, 2011, at 2:21 AM, Henderickx, Wim (Wim) wrote:
Reinaldo,
What happens if a customer wants to get more ports than the CPE owns?
Similar to the other stateless proposals such a 4rd or divi, there is no
provision to dynamically extend that range allocated by the ISP.
The consensus
On Nov 7, 2011, at 11:05 AM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
How would PCP operate with this model?
This is an interesting question... This should make the life of the PCP
server rather easy, as there will be no state to keep there too.
Interesting indeed, no pcp and no alg
PCP stil works. It is
If you want to present during the Softwire meetings in Taipei and you have not
yet sent me or Yong a request for a time slot, please do it now.
The 2 key topics this time will be Multicast and Stateless. Note that we have 2
slots, so there should be ample time for discussions.
Alain Yong.
(IPv4) and CNGI-CERNET2 (IPv6).
Regards,
xing
On 2011/09/08, at 10:00, Alain Durand wrote:
Softwire interim meeting preliminary agenda @ Beijing, 2011/09/26-27
Participants are expected to have read all the drafts that will be discussed
Day 1: Sept. 26th
1) Intro, logistic
Fred:
The way I phrased the call for the interim meeting on the mailling list might
have created some unwanted confusion.
Yong and I are going to publish the agenda for the interim meeting very soon.
There will be ample time to discuss the various propositions on the table in
the 'stateless'
in
favor of larger internet community.
Cheers,
Rajiv
-Original Message-
From: Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2011 11:04 AM
To: 'Alain Durand'
Cc: Yong Cui; softwires@ietf.org; liziye; iesg-secret...@ietf.org;
Ralph Droms
(rdroms)
Subject: RE: [Softwires] Softwire
As we mentioned earlier, the softwire interim meeting will focus on 'stateless
solutions'. If you'd like to present there, please send the chairs a note by
Friday this week.
Alain.
___
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
We mentioned 'tunneling vs translating'. This should cover it.
Alain.
Sent from my iPad
On Aug 19, 2011, at 8:16 AM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) raj...@cisco.com wrote:
Yong,
Why is dIVI not included In the discussion ?
Could you please clarify?
Cheers,
Rajiv
Sent from Phone
On
Following-up on the Quebec meeting, we would like to organize an interim
meeting end of September.
We will focus on so-called stateless solutions and other remaining business in
the wg (multicast. mibs,...)
that require more time than we usually have during a normal IETF meeting.
The format will
This is a reminder for presenters to send their slides to the chairs NO LATER
THAN SUNDAY 5PM EDT.
- Alain Yong.
___
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
On Jul 21, 2011, at 5:08 AM, Wojciech Dec wrote:
I would like to support Mark's observation and add one more: While
fine and chartered drafts like MIBs (20 minutes) and multicast (30
minutes) surely have discussion merit, besides merit of non-chartered
drafts like B4-NAT-bypass, DHCP- ..,
suggest to move topic 19 together with 8 and 9?
That would be helpful for the discussion
Many thanks
Gang
2011/7/18, Alain Durand adur...@juniper.net:
The agenda has been posted.
- Alain Yong.
___
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
Mark:
Behcet is right. We have Multicast in our charter. The fact that some of those
discussions are repeated elsewhere is, I agree, unfortunate.
However, Softwire is the place to discuss multicast on tunnel base transition
strategy.
Stateless solution have also made it in the charter, and as
Following up on the 'stateless' thread from a wg chair perspective.
Yong and I are preparing a discussion FOR the Quebec meeting on the so-called
stateless solution.
There are a number of points in the current draft that need discussion.
For example, no logging has been presented as a strong
On Apr 12, 2011, at 4:03 PM, Mark Townsley wrote:
Hello Dmitry,
My view is that 4rd is most easily understood if and only if it connects to a
CE function that is performing NAPT. The CE function may be in what is
traditionally considered a host, or in what is clearly a router.
More
...@ietf.org] De la
part de Alain Durand
Envoyé : jeudi 3 mars 2011 16:50
À : Jari Arkko; Ralph Droms
Cc : softwires@ietf.org list; Yong Cui
Objet : [Softwires] DS-lite update
Dear ADs,
New rev of the them main DS-lite doc (draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite-07)
and the DHCP tunnel option
Dear ADs,
New rev of the them main DS-lite doc (draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite-07)
and the DHCP tunnel option (draft-ietf-softwire-ds-lite-tunnel-option-09)
have been published. I believe they address all remaining comments. This should
enable to restart the IESG process.
- Alain.
Daniel,
We have talked in the past within the working group about how should a CPE
decide in which mode to boot:
IPv4-only, IPv6-only, full dual-stack, DS-Lite or 6rd...
We agreed to punt this until the specs were completed, so now would be the time
to restart this effort.
The technique that
, Cc: here, to start a
similar last call in the DHC wg.
The Softwire last call will end on 12/17/2010.
Alain Durand, Softwire co-chair.
___
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
On Nov 15, 2010, at 8:21 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Nov 15, 2010, at 9:13 AM, Alain Durand
adur...@juniper.netmailto:adur...@juniper.net wrote:
I understand that the exact behavior of a DHCP client receiving a FQDN option
is not necessarily covered adequately in DHC documents,
but I do not think
On Nov 11, 2010, at 8:40 PM, David W. Hankins wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 05:17:03PM -0800, Ted Lemon wrote:
Do I take this to mean that you are not in favor of the use of the
search path with this option?
That's one workaround. I am neither for nor against it. The search
path
On Nov 10, 2010, at 6:29 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Nov 10, 2010, at 9:36 PM, Dave Thaler dtha...@microsoft.com wrote:
It is my understanding that if the string passed to a name resolver library
contains dots, no search list should be used. (Reference: RFC 1535)
The Windows name resolver
On Nov 9, 2010, at 7:48 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
Here, wouldn't it be easier just to say that if there is no '.' label (the
zero-length label) at the end of the name, you have to use the domain search
list?
Why can't we just say: pass this to the local DNS resolver and be done? Why
should the
On Nov 10, 2010, at 1:14 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:
And is there a description of the local name resolution library (quoting
Dave) that meets the requirements of the softwires usage expectation? That
is, does the softwires WG expect the usual behavior by just handing the
contents of the
Dear wg,
You may have noticed that we have this time a very large number of proposals on
that table...
I would like to direct the presenters of 'new technology approaches' listed
bellow to NOT PRESENT
in details the TECHNOLOGY they are bringing to the table
but INSTEAD to EXPLAIN their PROBLEM
Dear wg,
Here is the tentative agenda for the softwire meeting at IETF79.
As you see, there is an abundance of items that are neither on the current
charter nor on the logical updates
that we chairs have been discussing with our ADs.
- Alain.
IETF79 Softwire agenda
Items in charter
On Oct 18, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Oct 18, 2010, at 8:06 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange-ftgroup.com
mohamed.boucad...@orange-ftgroup.com wrote:
In addition to the technical reasons mentioned in previous e-mails, I
I'm sorry, I must have missed that email. I saw a lot of
Dear wg:
draft-ietf-softwire-ds-lite-tunnel-optionmailto:draft-ietf-softwire-ds-lite-tunnel-opt...@tools.ietf.org
has been reviewed by the IESG with input from the dhc wg. Their conclusion was
that having both an IP option and an FQDN option
to describe the tunnel-end-point was redundant. After
On Aug 11, 2010, at 6:00 PM, Ralph Droms wrote:
2. If the number of assignable IPv4 addresses is for a start multiplied by
10, by statically sharing ports of each address among 10 customers, this
still leaves several thousands of IPv4 ports per customer. (Exactly 6144
ports per customer
Jari,
Thank you for your comments. We will generate a new rev of the draft to address
them asap.
- Alain..
On Aug 9, 2010, at 11:35 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
I am reviewing this draft. Please find the first batch of my comments below:
Technical:
The common thinking for more than 10 years
On Aug 9, 2010, at 11:35 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
A DS-Lite home gateway SHOULD NOT operate a NAT function on a B4
interface, as the NAT function will be performed by the AFTR in the
service provider's network.
I am not sure what it means to operate a NAT function on an interface.
Presumably it
I have posted draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite-06 to answer all the points
raised bellow except for the ID nits.
Note: Randy Bush and Brian Haberman have asked to be removed from the author
list, so I did.
- Alain.
On Aug 9, 2010, at 11:35 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
I am reviewing this
...has been uploaded with requested change. Please email me any further change
request.
- Alain.
___
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
I've posted the tentative agenda with all the requested items. Slots length
order will be finalized closer to meeting time.
Please send the chairs any addition/change/deletion. Also, please send me your
slides ASAP.
- Alain.
___
Softwires mailing
If you have not done so yet, please send me and Dvid your request for agenda
time.
- Alain.
___
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
On this topic, I would strongly suggest to read RFC3901: DNS IPv6 Transport
Operational Guidelines.
- Alain.
On Jun 1, 2010, at 3:17 AM, lizhenqi...@chinamobile.com
lizhenqi...@chinamobile.com wrote:
DS-lite doesn't require the first DNS server be dual stack. Even the first
DNS server
Alain Durand (aduran...@comcast.net) and Dave Ward
(dw...@juniper.net) are the document shepherds. Ralph
Droms (rdroms-i...@gmail.com) is the responsible AD.
___
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo
On May 24, 2010, at 3:59 PM, Mark Townsley wrote:
On 5/24/10 9:42 PM, Alain Durand wrote:
Congratulation to Mark Ole to get this thought!
Well, Remi got it thought, Ole and I got it Through ;-)
oops... My keyboard failed me again... Sorry, Rémi, I did not intended to take
the credits away
On May 7, 2010, at 10:55 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
(c) N:1
model: a single CGN serve a group of PGW/GGSN. Indeed, having +16M of
customers
is a valid case. **BUT** which Service Provider will accept to service this
huge
amount of UEs with the same node (if we suppose that a mega
Dear WG,
At the 3GPP-IETF interim meeting, there was strong interest in GI DS-lite, and
the recommendation was the IETF should take on its standardization. There was
similar interest shown during the last IETF meeting and an informal show of
hands demonstrated large support to take GI DS-lite
Dear working group members,
In the spirit of full transparency, I'd like to inform you that I have left my
former employer and now joined my co-chair David Ward's group at Juniper.
David I discussed this situation with our ADs, and we think we can keep
running the working group efficiently
63 matches
Mail list logo
