,
Leaf
-Original Message-
From: Leaf Yeh [mailto:leaf.yeh@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 11:26 AM
To: 'Ole Troan'
Cc: 'Suresh Krishnan'; 'Ted Lemon'; 'softwires@ietf.org'
Subject: RE: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-12.txt
Ole - that’s what n/a, null, 0, 0
for in its ORO…
I preferred mime. Your above words specified the behavior, but my words
specified the implementation. :-)
Best Regards,
Leaf
-Original Message-
From: Ole Troan [mailto:otr...@employees.org]
Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2015 4:24 AM
To: Leaf Yeh
Cc: Tomasz Mrugalski
Regards,
Leaf
From: Xing Li [mailto:x...@cernet.edu.cn]
Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2015 8:32 AM
To: Ole Troan
Cc: Leaf Yeh; softwires@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-12.txt
Ole Troan 写道:
#14. Fig.9
Message-
From: Ole Troan [mailto:otr...@employees.org]
Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2015 3:58 AM
To: Leaf Yeh
Cc: Suresh Krishnan; Ted Lemon; softwires@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-12.txt
Leaf,
Leaf - In sec. 11
“ They cannot
exist with MAP
the definition of OPTION_S46_RULE OPTION_S46_PORTPARAMS in
draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp.
Best Regards,
Leaf
-Original Message-
From: Leaf Yeh [mailto:leaf.yeh@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 4:30 PM
To: 'Ole Troan'
Cc: 'Suresh Krishnan'; 'Ted Lemon'; 'softwires@ietf.org'
Subject
?
#14. Fig.9 in Appendix B looks the same as Fig. 2 in Sec. 5.1, could we replace
'A' in Fig.2 to be 'i', and replace 'M' in Fig.2 to be 'j'?
Best Regards,
Leaf
-Original Message-
From: Leaf Yeh [mailto:leaf.yeh@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 4:48 PM
To: 'Ole Troan'
Cc
Nits found in draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-11:
a. In sec. 4.4, o option-length: 4
Per the format defined for OPTION_S46_V4V6BIND, the value of the
option-length should be variable. I guess the above text is wrongly copied
from other place.
b. In sec. 4.5,
The OPTION_S46_PORTPARAMS option
.', right?
Best Regards,
Leaf
-Original Message-
From: Ole Troan [mailto:otr...@employees.org]
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 6:41 PM
To: Leaf Yeh
Cc: Suresh Krishnan; Ted Lemon; softwires@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-12.txt
Leaf,
I got a late
I got a late read on this draft, and may find some editorial nits:
#1. In sec. 3,
End-user IPv6 prefix: The IPv6 prefix assigned to an End-user CE by
other means than MAP itself. E.g.,
Provisioned using DHCPv6 PD [RFC3633],
What does 'MAT-E/T' mean? Sounds 'MAP-E/T' in Softwire-WG?
Best Regards,
Leaf
-Original Message-
From: softwires-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Ted Lemon
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 8:28 AM
To: Poscic, Kristian (Kristian)
Cc:
FYI, draft-mdt-softwire-map-dhcp-option-03 has been adopted by the Softwire-WG
as draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp-01.
Best Regards,
Leaf
From: softwires-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Poscic, Kristian (Kristian)
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 7:03 AM
To:
Mark - I think the only question that should be on the table is whether a 1:1
rule is called something different or not - kind of like how we refer to a /32
or /128 as a hostroute.
Even in the case of MAP-E 1:1, there still has 2 kinds of deployments:
a. map PSID into the EA bits of the
Section 3 - After the BNG responds to the user with
an Advertise message, the user requests for a DHCP 6rd Option by
carrying a Parameter Request option (55) [RFC2132].
Per the Figure 1 in Section 3, the above 'Advertise message' sounds the
DHCPv4 message of 'DHCPOFFER (2)'.
till T2, the DHCP client enters into the REBINDING state
and attempts to contact any possible server. '?
Best Regards,
Leaf
-Original Message-
From: Maglione Roberta [mailto:roberta.magli...@telecomitalia.it]
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 9:13 PM
To: 'Leaf Yeh'; i...@ietf.org
Cc
I guess '4over6' sounds a better name for the solution whether it has IPv6(A)
mapping for IPv4(A+P) or not.
Best Regards,
Leaf
-Original Message-
From: softwires-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Satoru Matsushima
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 2:07
'4over6' could be DS-Lite 2.0, which may also embrace MAP-E; '4via6' could be
a better name for MAP-T in the same logic below. :-)
Best Regards,
Leaf
-Original Message-
From: Satoru Matsushima [mailto:satoru.matsush...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 5:10 PM
To: Leaf yeh
My 2 cents: 'Allocation' might be better than 'Assignment' in the text. The
word of 'assignment' makes the reader tend to think only about the CEs.
Best Regards,
Leaf
-Original Message-
From: softwires-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Ole Tr?an
Sent:
Could we update the description of 'service-type(6)=Call check' as follows,
'... typically based on the NAS-Port-Id(87), or Calling-Station-Id(31)
attributes, etc. It is recommended that such Access-Requests use the value of
NAS-Port-Id or Calling-Station-Id as the value of the User-Name.'
if
Simon - Here's an idea: a restricted profile of MAP-E that would only allow
hub-and-spoke, described in a separate RFC, would look exactly like
LW4o6, right?
I believe the 'F-flag' defined in section 4.2 of draft-ietf (MAP_DHCP, ver.-00
or -01,
+ 1
Best Regards,
Leaf
-Original Message-
From: softwires-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Mark Townsley
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 1:10 AM
To: Suresh Krishnan
Cc: Softwires WG
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Call for confirming the selection of MAP-E as
Qi Sun - I would like ...MAP-E on the standard track and keep it focusing on
mesh scenarios.
MAP sounds native in mesh mode, because CE got the public ipv4 address, its
port set, and the mapping between IPv4 (A+P) and the accessible IPv6 prefix,
but why can't we make it support hub-and-spoke?
Pls. ignore this mail. Sorry for the disturbance.
Best Regards,
Leaf
___
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
+1
Best Regards,
Leaf
-Original Message-
From: softwires-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Xing Li
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 10:33 AM
To: Suresh Krishnan
Cc: Softwires WG; Yong Cui
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Call for adoption of
+1 for adoption (Disclosure: MAP design team member).
Best Regards,
Leaf
-Original Message-
From: softwires-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Tomek Mrugalski
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2012 3:19 PM
To: softwires@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Call for
Maoke - i fully agree with you as zero-lengthed EA-bits is a naturally possible
case of MAP. however, to my understanding, even in this case the Figure 7 of
MAP addressing architecture is still appliable and therefore it implies PSID
length also equals to zero. this is the real meaning of
Maoke - Section 7.3 page 19:
A MAP-E CE provisioned with only a Default Mapping Rule, as in the
1:1 case, and with no IPv4 address and port range configured by other
means, MUST disable its NAT44 functionality.
Question #8: what is the consequence of disabling the NAT44 functionality on CE
when
be totally independent from the mapping.
Best Regards,
Leaf
From: Maoke [mailto:fib...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 3:31 PM
To: Leaf yeh
Cc: Satoru Matsushima; Softwires-wg
Subject: Re: [Softwires] map-00: review on the mode 1:1
2012/6/28 Leaf yeh leaf.y@huawei.com
Maoke - i fully
http://xkcd.com/449/ - Just for a test
From: softwires-boun...@ietf.org [softwires-boun...@ietf.org] on behalf of
Tomek Mrugalski [tomasz.mrugal...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 22:36
To: softwires@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Softwires] [Softwire]
Satoru - Let's think that a CE provisioned with following BMR comes from MAP
DHCPv6 options.
BMR:
o Rule-ipv6-prefix : {exact matched with CE's delegated prefix}
o Rule-ipv4-prefix : x.x.x.x/32
o EA-length : 0
o Port-param option : {PSID/length}
This BMR could be a LW46
+1 for draft-ietf-softwire-map-00
Best Regards,
Leaf
-Original Message-
From: softwires-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Simon Perreault
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 9:58 PM
To: softwires@ietf.org
Subject: [Softwires] MAP design team [Was: Re:
I might have a naive question: why does the Softtwire-WG need a document for
deployment other than a document for motivation?
I guess the answer might be the motivation is for the requirements, and the
deployment is for the specified application cases, right? But to me the answer
might be as
,
Leaf Yeh
Advanced Research, Network Product Line, Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
Phone: +86-755-28978851, Mobile: +86-13600451075,
Postal Address: F4-3A, Huawei, Bantian, Longgang District,Shenzhen 518129,
P.R.China
-Original Message-
From: softwires-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:softwires
The stateless sounds only regard to BR, the border router, in the case of
MAP-T/MAP-E/4rd-U,
or even CGN ( or AFTR) in the case of Juniper SD-NAT.
Best Regards,
Leaf
-Original Message-
From: softwires-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of liu dapeng
Sent:
-Original Message-
From: softwires-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Leaf yeh
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 6:38 AM
To: Ole Trøan
Cc: softwires WG; map...@external.cisco.com team; fine...@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [Softwires] More changes to revision 03.
Ole
:192.0.2.18 (0x12)
Sharing ratio: 256 (16 - (32 - 24) = 8. 2^8 = 256)
Cheers,
Leaf
-Original Message-
From: Ole Trøan [mailto:o...@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 6:16 PM
To: Leaf yeh
Cc: fine...@huawei.com; map...@external.cisco.com team
Subject: Re: More
Comments and Questions:
1. Section 7.3 - Translating IPv6 Address and Port Number into IPv4 Address and
Port Number at the BR
quote At the BR, the IPv4 source address MUST be derived from the IPv6 source
address (IPv4-translatable address) as per BMR MAP
I'd like to add one more row in the below table, then let it look like as
follows.
+--+-++
| |source address | destination address|
+--+-++
| CE-CE | ||
, 2011 7:25 PM
To: Leaf yeh
Cc: Satoru Matsushima; Rémi Després; Ole Troan; Softwires-wg; fine...@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping for encapsulation and
double-translation
On 2011/10/11, at 20:00, Leaf yeh wrote:
Remi - A Destination address from a CE
To: Leaf yeh
Cc: Satoru Matsushima; Rémi Després; Ole Troan; Softwires-wg; fine...@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Proposed Unified Address Mapping for encapsulation and
double-translation
Leaf, thanks for the summary.
On 2011/10/10, at 20:34, Leaf yeh wrote:
Remi - a1- If the CE has
Remi - a1- If the CE has an exclusive or shared IPv4 address:
- 64 8 -- L = 32 ---48-L8
+-++---+---++--+-+---+
| IPv6 prefix |CE index| 0 | V | IPv4 address | PSID | 0 | L |
the IPv4 destination
address + Port in the received IPv4 packets at BR.
Best Regards,
Leaf
发件人: Jacni Qin [ja...@jacni.com]
发送时间: 2011年9月26日 7:17
到: Leaf yeh
Cc: Rémi Després; Softwires-wg
主题: Re: [Softwires] 4rd Address Mapping - version-01
On 9/24/2011 7
Regards,
Leaf
发件人: Leaf yeh
发送时间: 2011年9月24日 16:37
到: Ole Troan
Cc: tets...@ipinfusion.com; fine...@huawei.com; softwires@ietf.org
主题: RE: Q of clarification on the draft-murakami-softwire-4rd-00
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-murakami-softwire-4rd
The following is my quick comments questions on the new updated draft.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-despres-softwire-4rd-addmapping/?include_text=1
Section 6
…Its CE IPv6 prefix, Rule IPv6 prefix, and Rule
IPv4 prefix, are supposed to be respectively
The following is my quick comments questions on the new updated draft.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-despres-softwire-4rd-addmapping/?include_text=1
Section 6
…Its CE IPv6 prefix, Rule IPv6 prefix, and Rule
IPv4 prefix, are supposed to be respectively
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-murakami-softwire-4rd/?include_text=1
Section 4
The IPv4 prefix, IPv4 address or shared IPv4 address for use at a
customer site is created by extracting the IPv4 embedded address (EA-
bits) from the IPv6 prefix delegated to the site. …
A
45 matches
Mail list logo
