Re: [Softwires] Milestone update and closing/rechartering discussion

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 2:34 AM, wrote: > > Dear Chairs, > > As Mesh topology multicast, DS-lite multicast as well as multicast prefix > option documents are all going to be proposed as Standard, I think the > companion document >

[Softwires] New Version Notification for draft-sarikaya-softwire-map-multicast-04.txt

successfully submitted by Behcet Sarikaya and posted to the IETF repository. Name: draft-sarikaya-softwire-map-multicast Revision: 04 Title: Multicast Support for Mapping of Address and Port Protocol and Light Weight 4over6 Document date: 2015-06-08 Group: Individual

Re: [Softwires] lw4o6 question

wording doesn’t use normative language anyway). Yes, I agree, the tunnel part of RFC 2983 is better. No offense to Erik. Regards, Behcet Would that work? Cheers, Ian On 24 Sep 2014, at 22:46, Behcet Sarikaya sarikaya2...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, I noticed that RFC 4213

[Softwires] New Version Notification for draft-sarikaya-softwire-map-multicast-03.txt

Hi all, We submitted a new version of the draft based on the comments we received in Toronto. Please read and comment. Regards, Behcet A new version of I-D, draft-sarikaya-softwire-map-multicast-03.txt has been successfully submitted by Behcet Sarikaya and posted to the IETF repository

[Softwires] lw4o6 question

Hi all, I noticed that RFC 4213 is referenced in both Section 5.2 and 6.2 regarding: Covering tunneling and traffic class mapping between IPv4 and IPv6 I am curious as to why RFC 4213 which only deals with tunneling IPv6 packets in IPv4 would be relevant to lw4o6? Regards, Behcet

Re: [Softwires] [softwire]One of the remaining issues in the softwire multicast.

We have this draft which defines RA options for all translation multicast technologies to configure the nodes using RAs: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarikaya-softwire-6man-raoptions-01 If there is interest I'd be happy to submit a revised version. Regards, Behcet On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at

Re: [Softwires] Comments on 6rd and MAP Multicast

makes better use of IPv6 multicast as you mentioned. I hope that this resolves your concern. Thx, Behcet Thanks, Yiu On 7/24/14, 6:08 PM, Behcet Sarikaya sarikaya2...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Yiu, Can you please clarify your point in today's session? Do you want the encapsulation

[Softwires] Comments on 6rd and MAP Multicast

Hi Yiu, Can you please clarify your point in today's session? Do you want the encapsulation or translation parts to be dropped? Maybe we can do that but I am not sure if we can say that all IPv4 and IPv6 access networks are multicast enabled? Regards, Behcet

Re: [Softwires] Adopting 6rd and MAP Multicast Drafts

all, I also support the adoption. Best wishes Qiong On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 2:58 AM, Tina TSOU tina.tsou.zout...@huawei.com wrote: Dear all, I support the adoption. Thank you, Tina On Jul 30, 2013, at 7:25 AM, Behcet Sarikaya sarikaya2...@gmail.com wrote: Hi

[Softwires] Adopting 6rd and MAP Multicast Drafts

Hi all, Today in Softwire session there was not enough time for us to present our drafts on 6rd and MAP multicast support: http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-sarikaya-softwire-6rdmulticast-05.txt and http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-sarikaya-softwire-map-multicast-00.txt Both drafts are the only

Re: [Softwires] draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast-05.txt

, Jul 17, 2013 at 3:07 AM, Behcet Sarikaya sarikaya2...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Shu, Please see inline. Regards, Behcet On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 8:03 AM, Shu Yang yangshu1...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Behcet, If Softwire mesh means packets from the host to one CE

Re: [Softwires] draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast-05.txt

Dear Shu, Please see inline. Regards, Behcet On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 8:03 AM, Shu Yang yangshu1...@gmail.com wrote: Dear Behcet, If Softwire mesh means packets from the host to one CE are directly routed to the destination CE, I am puzzled how multicast can be supported in such a

[Softwires] draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-multicast-05.txt

Hi Authors, If Softwire mesh means packets from the host to one CE are directly routed to the destination CE, I am puzzled how multicast can be supported in such a network? May be my mesh network understanding is wrong? Regards, Behcet On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 5:19 AM, internet-dra...@ietf.org

[Softwires] New Version Notification for draft-sarikaya-softwire-map-multicast-00.txt

A new version of I-D, draft-sarikaya-softwire-map-multicast-00.txt has been successfully submitted by Behcet Sarikaya and posted to the IETF repository. Filename:draft-sarikaya-softwire-map-multicast Revision:00 Title: Multicast Support for Mapping of Address and Port

Re: [Softwires] Working group last call for draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-03

Likewise, RA options for translation multicast prefixes is worthy of attention. On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:29 PM, meng.w...@zte.com.cn wrote: Support! RADIUS Extensions of multicast-prefix-option is worthy of attention too. Thanks. Wei softwires-boun...@ietf.org 写于 2013-03-26

Re: [Softwires] Comments on draft-ietf-softwire-map-03

May I suggest that Tom to become the editor of MAP-E draft? Behcet On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 3:47 AM, Ole Troan otr...@employees.org wrote: Tom, thanks again for thorough comments, very much appreciated! Section 4 - It might be best to describe operations with respect to

Re: [Softwires] PSID superfluous in MAP-E IIDs (part of ticket #19)

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.netwrote: 2013-01-24 17:27, Ole Troan otr...@employees.org : hi, can we please keep discussion on the list. not via the issue tracker? - the issue tracker was AFAIK created by the chairs to be used. Authors don't

[Softwires] New Version Notification for draft-sarikaya-softwire-4rdmulticast-04.txt

Hi all, I submitted a revised version of 4rd multicast draft. Chairs: please reserve a slot in IETF 85 session. Regards, Behcet A new version of I-D, draft-sarikaya-softwire-4rdmulticast-04.txt has been successfully submitted by Behcet Sarikaya and posted to the IETF repository. Filename

Re: [Softwires] Way forward with MAP-T and 4rd

Hi Suresh, Thanks for clarifying. I am in support of both a and b. Regards, Behcet On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Suresh Krishnan suresh.krish...@ericsson.com wrote: Hi Behcet, On 10/04/2012 11:53 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: Dear Chairs, I think that your call needs some clarification

Re: [Softwires] Way forward with MAP-T and 4rd

Dear Chairs, I think that your call needs some clarification. First of all, there is no active document that describes MAP-T. I checked Roberta's draft, draft-maglione-softwire-map-t-scenarios-00.txt, she gives no references. Is the intention of this call to put all of MAP-E, MAP-T and 4rd into

Re: [Softwires] Comments on draft-ietf-softwire-map-02.txt

HI Satoru, I am saying that hub spoke model is quite simple in case of MAP-E. In the draft, draft-ietf-softwire-map-02, as you have done it in draft-mdt-softwire-map-encapsulation-00, specify hubspoke case first. I know that mesh model is important for MAP-E as BR may be deployed deep in the

Re: [Softwires] draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-03

Hi all, It came to my attention that some words below in this mail was offensive. I apologize for the bad choice of the words. Civility first. Regards, Behcet On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Behcet Sarikaya sarikaya2...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Med. Please see inline. On Fri, Aug 24, 2012

Re: [Softwires] draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-03

-Message d'origine- De : Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:sarikaya2...@gmail.com] Envoyé : jeudi 23 août 2012 21:33 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP Cc : softwires@ietf.org Objet : Re: [Softwires] draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-03 Hi Med, Thanks for posting this revision but it seems like

Re: [Softwires] draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-03

Hi Med, Thanks for posting this revision but it seems like it has not solved any problems but instead it created more problems :-). First, please see the two active tickets, ticket #10 and ticket #11 in the issue tracker: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/softwire/trac/report/1 In addition, in

Re: [Softwires] [softwire] #10: Nothing in common with DS-Lite

On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 7:04 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: Hi Behcet, Please see inline. Cheers, Med -Message d'origine- De : Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:sarikaya2...@gmail.com] Envoyé : vendredi 27 juillet 2012 18:48 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP Cc : softwire issue

Re: [Softwires] [softwire] #10: Nothing in common with DS-Lite

Hi Med, My comments below. Please do not take them personal. No offense. Please, please. On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 6:48 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: Dear all, I really don't understand this issue. It is even misplaced to have this comment at this stage, since this is a document

[Softwires] draft-sarikaya-softwire-4rdmulticast-03.txt

Hi Chairs, It seems that draft-sarikaya-softwire-4rdmulticast-03.txt is the only solution draft on 4rd multicast extensions. I would like to propose the adoption of this draft as WG draft as an addition to 4rd set of WG drafts. Regards, Behcet ___

Re: [Softwires] 6rd Multicast

On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Tom Taylor tom.taylor.s...@gmail.com wrote: Chairs: if draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast is not to be generalized, could a charter item be added for 6rd multicast? draft-tsou-softwire-6rd-multicast seems to be a reasobale candidate. There is already a

[Softwires] New Version Notification for draft-sarikaya-softwire-4rdmulticast-03.txt

A new version of I-D, draft-sarikaya-softwire-4rdmulticast-03.txt has been successfully submitted by Behcet Sarikaya and posted to the IETF repository. Filename:draft-sarikaya-softwire-4rdmulticast Revision:03 Title: Multicast Support for 4rd Creation date: 2012-07-17

[Softwires] New Version Notification for draft-sarikaya-softwire-6rdmulticast-04.txt

A new version of I-D, draft-sarikaya-softwire-6rdmulticast-04.txt has been successfully submitted by Behcet Sarikaya and posted to the IETF repository. Filename:draft-sarikaya-softwire-6rdmulticast Revision:04 Title: Multicast Support for 6rd Creation date: 2012-07-16

Re: [Softwires] Comment on draft-ietf-softwire-4rd-02

:-). That resolves my concern. My comment applies to MAP as well if the same support I mentioned exists there, I need to check it. Regards, Behcet Thanks, RD Le 2012-07-11 à 21:41, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit : Hi Remi, I was reading this draft and one sentence in the abstract drew my attention

[Softwires] Comment on draft-ietf-softwire-4rd-02

Hi Remi, I was reading this draft and one sentence in the abstract drew my attention: To cope with the IPv4 address shortage, customers can be assigned IPv4 addresses with restricted port sets. I think this means A+P at the customer level. I was under the impression that A+P use in 4rd was

Re: [Softwires] Issue tracker for wg

Dear Chair, In creating a new ticket, should we cc to the list softwires@ietf.org? Kind regards, Behcet On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Suresh Krishnan suresh.krish...@ericsson.com wrote: Hi all, In order to handle document issues in an orderly manner, we have setup an issue tracker for

Re: [Softwires] [SPAM] Re: WG last call on draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-02

, here is my take on this. On 6/27/2012 8:30 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: [...] That's a big IF. Not everybody has to do it the same way. The solution in draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-02 builds itself something without considering what DS-Lite is doing. As I told you before, DS-Lite

Re: [Softwires] [SPAM] Re: WG last call on draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-02

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 6:36 PM, Jacni Qin ja...@jacni.com wrote: Re-, On 6/26/2012 Tuesday 2:50 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 1:09 AM, Jacni Qinja...@jacni.com  wrote: Hi Behcet, all, On Friday, June 22, 2012 2:23:34 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: Folks, We have

Re: [Softwires] [SPAM] Re: WG last call on draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-02

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 1:09 AM, Jacni Qin ja...@jacni.com wrote: Hi Behcet, all, On Friday, June 22, 2012 2:23:34 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: Folks, We have published revised version of our draft on multicast extensions to DS-Lite at http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-sarikaya-softwire

Re: [Softwires] WG last call on draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-02

Folks, We have published revised version of our draft on multicast extensions to DS-Lite at http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-sarikaya-softwire-dslitemulticast-01.txt We think that this draft should be part of draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast. Regards, Behcet

Re: [Softwires] WG last call on draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-02

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 3:16 PM, Tom Taylor tom.taylor.s...@gmail.com wrote: Well, it is still in the Softwires domain if it tunnels the multicast data, is it not? It is not the case in the draft currently, check Sections 4.3 6.2. Behcet On 12/06/2012 4:11 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: I

Re: [Softwires] WG last call on draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-02

in any 4-6-4 use case What should be revised? Thanks for your help. Cheers, Med -Message d'origine- De : Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:sarikaya2...@gmail.com] Envoyé : vendredi 8 juin 2012 17:35 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP Cc : Wojciech Dec; Stig Venaas; softwires@ietf.org; Yong Cui

Re: [Softwires] WG last call on draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-02

...@orange.com wrote: Re-, May I re-iterate: * The draft is designed to allow the delivery of multicast services to DS-Lite serviced customers. * The draft proposes multicast extensions and not unicast ones. Cheers, Med -Message d'origine- De : Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:sarikaya2

Re: [Softwires] WG last call on draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-02

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

Re: [Softwires] WG last call on draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-02

On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 8:07 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: Hi Woj, DS-Lite terminology is used in the sense that an IPv4 receiver is delivered (IPv4) multicast content (from an IPv4 source) over an IPv6 network. The generic use case as described in

Re: [Softwires] WG last call on draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-02

On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Stig Venaas s...@venaas.com wrote: On 6/7/2012 10:08 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote: On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 8:07 AM,mohamed.boucad...@orange.com  wrote: So you are saying that this draft does not correspond to Multicast extensions for DS-Lite? I sent

Re: [Softwires] WG last call on draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-02

On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Wojciech Dec wdec.i...@gmail.com wrote: +1 The IGMP/MLD translation is the key piece of this draft and needs to be thorough. In addition a general observation: This draft appears to have very little in common with DS-Lite (nothing except use of IPinIP on my

Re: [Softwires] Result from the consensus call on Map vs 4rd-U and official way forward

Hi Jan, P.P.S: Should we deprecate RFC6346? A+P is in MAP T, MAP E and 4rd-U. I don't understand why you are worried about it? Having said that I for one think that A+P should be restricted to the CPEs. Otherwise you are creating another NAT. Regards, Behcet

Re: [Softwires] Path to move forward with 4rdŠ 4rd-U as transparent as MAP-E

On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Maoke fib...@gmail.com wrote: hi Yiu, sorry but i just found i missed a technical issue you left in this message. 2012/4/9 Lee, Yiu yiu_...@cable.comcast.com    on the other hand, 4rd-u makes a tight coupling between the address format    and its own

Re: [Softwires] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-chen-softwire-4rd-u-comment-00.txt

Hi Maoke, Thank you for your efforts in technical details of one specific proposal on the table. However, I for one think that probably it is time to concentrate on commonalities rather than the differences. As Alain indicated, these proposals do have a lot of common points. Why don't (whoever)

Re: [Softwires] IPv4 Residual Deployment - Unified-standard proposal 4rd

Hi Remi, Why is this draft informational? Behcet On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net wrote: Hello all, The new version of the unified 4rd proposal is now available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-despres-softwire-4rd-u-04 A summarized comparison of

[Softwires] draft-matsuhira-sa46t-mcast-00

Hi, I attended the presentation on this draft: draft-matsuhira-sa46t-mcast-00 It seems like the author has only addressed multicast address issue. The solution seems to have ignored what has been done on this issue so far, i.e. state-of-the-art. I suggest taking a look at Med's draft:

Re: [Softwires] comments draft-mawatari-softwire-464xlat-01

Hi Cameron, I think draft-mawatari-softwire-464xlat is about 4rd, they don't clearly say which approach they are taking but it seems like it is from murakami-softwire-4v6-translation, this draft is in the reference list but not referenced. Of course in 4rd you don't DNS64 due to the double

Re: [Softwires] Standardizing 4rd-U vs 4rd-Encapsulation AND Double translation - analysis

I would like to see more details on 4rd-u before. Why is it informational? A -01 would help. Regards, Behcet On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:07 AM, Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.netwrote: Mark, More on this debate below. Le 18 oct. 2011 à 19:44, Mark Townsley a écrit : On Oct 18, 2011, at

Re: [Softwires] Unifying Double Translation and Encapsulation for 4rd (4rd-U)

This is interesting proposal in favor of double translation. Regards, Behcet On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 4:56 AM, Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.netwrote: Hello all, The following draft has just been posted: tools.ietf.org/html/draft-despres-softwire-4rd-u-00. Hope it will be useful for

Re: [Softwires] New Version Notification for draft-sarikaya-softwire-6rdmulticast-02.txt

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 11:19 AM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: A new version of I-D, draft-sarikaya-softwire-6rdmulticast-02.txt has been successfully submitted by Behcet Sarikaya and posted to the IETF repository. Filename:draft-sarikaya-softwire-6rdmulticast Revision:02

Re: [Softwires] RE : Analysis of Port Indexing Algorithms (draft-bsd-softwire-stateless-port-index-analysis)

Hi Med, Another question: On page 19, you have: The limit of 0-4095 ports appears rather arbitrary and represents a    likely waste of ports, if not more that an operator may be interested    in utilizing. Why? Shouldn't they be excluded? Regards, Behcet

Re: [Softwires] v6ops - ietf81 recording

Hi Fred,   Please note the quotes on stateless in Alain's mail. Some techniques are not as stateless as is claimed. Please see the chair's slides in IETF 81. Regards, Behcet On Sep 7, 2011, at 1:58 PM, Alain Durand wrote: Fred: The way I phrased the call for the interim meeting on

Re: [Softwires] RE : Analysis of Port Indexing Algorithms (draft-bsd-softwire-stateless-port-index-analysis)

H323, that make the assumption                   that RTCP streaming will happen on RTP+1 port. Cheers, Med De : Behcet Sarikaya [behcetsarik...@yahoo.com] Date d'envoi : mercredi 14 septembre 2011 17:32 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP Cc

Re: [Softwires] draft-chen-softwire-4v6-pd-00

Hi Gang, In your draft Fig. 1, I don't understand H1, H2 and H3 that you have? The connections to the UE, what are they? It seems like you are depicting the UE as a WLAN AP? Also on page 6, you have a reference to RFC 6035, I think it should be 6052. Regards, Behcet

Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-00.txt

Status of this draft should be informational, right? Behcet 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          : Multicast Extensions to DS-Lite Technique in

Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-dslite-multicast-00.txt

No. Our intent is make I standard track document. I just asked, because the charter says it should be informational. Let's see what the chairs say. Behcet On Sep 12, 2011, at 6:18 PM, Behcet Sarikaya  behcetsarik...@yahoo.com wrote: Status of this draft should be informational

Re: [Softwires] v6ops - ietf81 recording

Hi Fred,   Please note the quotes on stateless in Alain's mail. Some techniques are not as stateless as is claimed. Please see the chair's slides in IETF 81. Regards, Behcet On Sep 7, 2011, at 1:58 PM, Alain Durand wrote: Fred: The way I phrased the call for the interim meeting

Re: [Softwires] 4rd mapping rule separation

Hi Marc, I am having trouble to see how this thing could be stateless? Also I don't see why we should, in view of NAT64 which is already standardized and there are implementations, why not use it? Of course no offense to my friend Xing Li. Regards, Behcet Particularly when targeting the

Re: [Softwires] Softwire Interim meeting

Hi Alain,   Can we assume that this meeting will not happen as I see no formal announcement? Regards, Behcet 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

Re: [Softwires] Softwire Interim meeting

On Aug 5, 2011, at 2:38 PM, Alain Durand wrote: 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

Re: [Softwires] DS-lite Multicast

+1 Behcet From: christian.jacque...@orange-ftgroup.com christian.jacque...@orange-ftgroup.com To: Lee, Yiu yiu_...@cable.comcast.com; softwires@ietf.org softwires@ietf.org Sent: Thu, July 28, 2011 1:52:56 AM Subject: Re: [Softwires] DS-lite Multicast Dear all, I would privilege the first

Re: [Softwires] DS-lite Multicast

argument of this statement? Thanks, Yiu On 7/28/11 9:45 AM, Behcet Sarikaya behcetsarik...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi Yiu,all, I see the first use case worth good value to work on, as the reason I stated during meeting: operators would happy with it because otherwise (the second

Re: [Softwires] IETF81 agenda (bashing)

The schedule is obviously rather busy. Here's a suggestion: Softwires has 30 minutes of Multicast transition presentation, while we have an entire BoF devoted to the subject earlier in the week. Do we really need to schedule time for this twice? Go stateless 4V6 go :-) Mark,

Re: [Softwires] Preparation for a discussion on 'stateless motivations' at the Quebec meeting

Hi Mark, It seems that the chairs have some concerns on the a+p transition technology which I understand. However here in so-called stateless solution, a+p is used in a very specific context, removing most of the concerns, at least to me. Regards, Behcet Let's have discussion on the

Re: [Softwires] Motivation draft for stateless v4 over v6 solution

On May 26, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Ole Troan wrote: I like the draft and I think it covers the motivational points well. as a general comment, I do think the document is too wordy. could the authors make the next revision terser or do you want me to propose text changes? I would

Re: [Softwires] Motivation Analysis for 4via6 Stateless Solutions

I support this draft. Having said that I saw draft-operators-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-01 which covers very similar scenarios. I suggest the authors work together and possibly merge their documents. Regards, Behcet Dear all, Last IETF meeting, ADs required volunteers to draft

Re: [Softwires] [BEHAVE] ***SPAM*** 5.548 (5) Is nat46 worth researching？

This is good point. But maybe this should be discussed in Softwires list. Regards, Behcet On 28 apr 2011, at 14:11, buptnoc wrote: As described in draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-framework-10#section-2.4 ， we need nat46 translator. But, do we really need this scenario？Is it worth to

Re: [Softwires] I-D Action:draft-sarikaya-softwire-dslite6rdmulticast-00.txt

Dear Chairs, I would like to present this draft. Regards, Behcet ___ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

Re: [Softwires] DHCP option for DS-lite

Alain, all, I support the authors in the debate. Also I urge the authors to work with Ted to come up with a solution acceptable to DHC WG, e.g. suboptions. I agree that for load balancing the operators prefer to use DNS but not DHCP servers. Regards, Behcet - Original Message

Re: [Softwires] GI-DS-lite as working group item?

Hi Yiu, Hi Ahmad, I am not a MIP expert. Please forgive me if I am wrong. This draft merely specifies that the gateway is the B4 element and describes how a CID can be constructed to tunnel the packets to AFTR. That's it. The draft didn't alter the MH. If the MH decides to use CMIP,

Re: [Softwires] GI-DS-lite as working group item?

 on the applicability of GI DS-Lite in ISP networks. Regards, Behcet From: mohamed.boucad...@orange-ftgroup.com mohamed.boucad...@orange-ftgroup.com To: Alain Durand adur...@juniper.net; Behcet Sarikaya sarik...@ieee.org Cc: softwires@ietf.org softwires@ietf.org Sent: Mon, May

Re: [Softwires] GI-DS-lite as working group item?

(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 centralised CGN implementation is found in the

Re: [Softwires] GI-DS-lite as working group item?

+1. I am going to provide my technical comments later. Regards, Behcet - Original Message From: olaf.bonn...@telekom.de olaf.bonn...@telekom.de To: adur...@juniper.net Cc: softwires@ietf.org Sent: Thu, May 6, 2010 2:02:50 AM Subject: Re: [Softwires] GI-DS-lite as working group

Re: [Softwires] [dhcwg] SOFTWIRE WG LC: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dhankins-softwire-tunnel-option-05

Hi David,   I did not know if a WG LC can be made on an individual draft? Regards, Behcet - Original Message From: David Ward dw...@juniper.net To: softwires@ietf.org softwires@ietf.org; dh...@ietf.org dh...@ietf.org Cc: David Ward dw...@juniper.net; Ralph Droms

Re: [Softwires] Host based translation: v4-v6

Alain wrote in his mail which I quote here: In our case, we have: * many millions of edge devices (similar to your UE)    * thousands of routers    * thousands of servers So your mileage with DS-Lite varies according to how much your network fits into the above

Re: [Softwires] Host based translation: v4-v6

Hi Cameron, Pls see below. - Original Message From: Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com To: Hui Deng denghu...@gmail.com Cc: softwires@ietf.org Sent: Sat, December 5, 2009 3:37:21 PM Subject: Re: [Softwires] Host based translation: v4-v6 Bottom line, we touched about the core

Re: [Softwires] Summary of the discussion Host based translation forv4-v4 within the same network.

Hi Sri,   GW-Init-DS-Lite is the DS-Lite with only home gateway mode. Access mode is taken out on the grounds that it requires host modification. As such, GW-Init-DS-Lite seems to be aligned with or almost the same as PMIPv6 mobility solution described in Section 3 of

Re: [Softwires] Fw: New Version Notification fordraft-sarikaya-softwire-dslitemobility-00

Hi Nick, - Original Message From: Nick Heatley nick.heat...@t-mobile.co.uk To: Behcet Sarikaya sarik...@ieee.org; softwires@ietf.org Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 4:48:00 AM Subject: RE: [Softwires] Fw: New Version Notification fordraft-sarikaya-softwire-dslitemobility-00 Hi