Hi Chairs,
I am not aware of any IPR related to this document.
Best regards,
Bing
> -Original Message-
> From: Yong Cui [mailto:cuiy...@tsinghua.edu.cn]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2019 5:21 PM
> To: draft-ietf-softwire-map-rad...@ietf.org
> Cc: Softwires-wg ; Yong Cui ;
> Ian
Hi Dear chairs and all,
I confirm that I have no IPR related to this draft. And I'm not aware of any
IPR related.
B.R.
Bing Liu
-Original Message-
From: Yong Cui [mailto:cuiy...@tsinghua.edu.cn]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 4:27 PM
To: Yu Fu
Cc: Ian Farrer; softwires@ietf.org;
Hi all,
I think allowing dynamic IPv4 address provisioning in lw4o6 makes sense. And it
is decent to be an Informational document.
So I support the adoption.
Best regards,
Bing
-Original Message-
From: Softwires [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Yong Cui
Sent: Wednesday,
Hi Dear co-authors and all,
I think it’s good to have a unified stateless 4over6 YANG model. So, I’d like
to see this work continuing.
Regards,
Bing
From: Softwires [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ian Farrer
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 11:42 PM
To: Qiong
Cc:
Hi all,
I support advancing 4rd as an experimental RFC.
Regards,
Bing
-Original Message-
From: Softwires [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Suresh
Krishnan
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 1:52 PM
To: Softwires WG
Cc: Yong Cui
Subject: [Softwires] Working group last
+1
Also support as a co-author, to supplement Sheng's point a little bit:
the MAP rules are critical information in a MAP system (and probably the only
MAP-specific data that need to be managed in the stateless solution). I believe
the operators would like to manage these data through
+1
Specifically agree on this point as a co-author.
The motivation of this draft was based on the Gang said common deployment
schema in real production networks, in which user configuration information is
usually managed by AAA.
For example, in fixed broadband networks, the MAP configuration
Support. I think the draft is mature enough to move forward.
Only a minor question:
I found most of the objects' MAX-ACCESS were defined as not-accessible,
except for the swmEncapsIIPDstType, swmEncapsIIPDst and
swmBGPNeighborTunnelType which were read-only.
Is there any special consideration
+1 also support.
B.R.
Bing
-Original Message-
From: softwires-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of christian.jacque...@orange.com
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 4:01 PM
To: Suresh Krishnan; Softwires WG
Cc: Yong Cui
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Working group
Hi, Shishio All
I support this draft. I think it is valuable to have a dedicated MIB definition
for 6rd.
A few comments:
1. Current draft hasn't contained conformance definition yet. But it is needed,
please check section 4.8 in RFC4181 for details.
2. The top level division of the sixRdMIB
I am in favor of adoption.
-Original Message-
From: softwires-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Suresh Krishnan
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 1:14 AM
To: Softwires WG
Subject: [Softwires] Call for confirming the adoption of
Hi, Shishio
Thanks for your review. Please see inline.
-Original Message-
From: Shishio Tsuchiya [mailto:shtsu...@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 1:09 AM
To: Liubing (Leo)
Cc: shtsu...@cisco.com; softwires@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Softwires] MAP-MIB request for comments
Hi, Shishio
-Original Message-
From: Shishio Tsuchiya [mailto:shtsu...@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 1:00 PM
To: Liubing (Leo)
Cc: shtsu...@cisco.com; softwires@ietf.org; Fuyu (Eleven)
Subject: Re: [Softwires] MAP-MIB request for comments
Bing
Thanks for your reply
table.
We expect your comments. Thanks a lot!
All the best,
Bing
-Original Message-
From: internet-dra...@ietf.org [mailto:internet-dra...@ietf.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 8:01 PM
To: Liubing (Leo)
Cc: wea...@csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn; dongji...@csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn
Dear Chairs WG,
I support advancing it.
Public IPv4 in 4over6 is a useful use case, especially for the operators who
still have plenty of reserved public IPv4 addresses.
The architecture is simple, and the v4 address provision is different from the
other 4over6 solutions, so it is quite
Hi, all
We've updated the MAP4rd radius attribute drafts.
They are two separated documents, however, they are similar so I include them
into one mail just for your convenient.
Please comment, many thanks.
B.R.
Bing, Sheng Yu
MAP
Hi, all
Here's the updated 4rd MIB draft.
Please comment, many thanks.
B.R.
Bing, Sheng Yu
***4rd MIB**
A new version of I-D, draft-fu-softwire-4rd-mib-01.txt
has been successfully submitted by Yu Fu and posted to the
IETF repository.
Hi, all
The MAP MIB was also updated. Please review and comments.
Many thanks!
B.R.
The authors
*MAP MIB*
A new version of I-D, draft-fu-softwire-map-mib-01.txt
has been successfully submitted by Yu Fu and posted to the
IETF repository.
Hi, Dear chairman
About this item:
* map-01 will remove any descriptive text concerning the 1:1 mapping
rules from the -00 draft
In MAP-00, the editors combined MAP-T and MAP-E together (which is only
combined by words, they are still two solutions that carriers have to choose
one).
In my
+1 for support.
It is on the WG charter and has been presented for a couple of times.
From: softwires-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Qiong
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 9:28 AM
To: Yong Cui
Cc: Softwires WG
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Call for adoption of DS-Lite
+1 for support
-Original Message-
From: softwires-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Sheng Jiang
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 9:22 AM
To: Yong Cui; Softwires WG
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Call for adoption of Softwire Mesh Management
Information Base
selection. So why we have to rush to a *stand track*?
From: Maoke [mailto:fib...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 5:52 PM
To: Sheng Jiang
Cc: Lee, Yiu; Liubing (Leo); Simon Perreault; softwires@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Path to move forward with 4rdŠ 4rd-U as transparent as
MAP-E
On 4/9/12 8:17 AM, Sheng Jiang wrote:
...
Operators have their own brains. They may listen to vendors, but they do think
by themselves and make decisions by themselves. Vendors would implement
whatever the operators order.
...
+1
I believe most of the time operators understand their own
-Original Message-
From: Jan Zorz @ go6.si [mailto:j...@go6.si]
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 6:37 PM
To: Liubing (Leo)
Cc: Sheng Jiang; softwires@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Path to move forward with 4rdŠ 4rd-U as transparent
as MAP-E
On 4/9/12 11:37 AM, Liubing (Leo
Sorry, I forgot to fill the title in the last mail, just forward it again.
-Original Message-
From: softwires-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Liubing (Leo)
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 8:01 PM
To: Maoke
Cc: softwires@ietf.org
Subject: [Softwires
+1
I've read the endless discussion, and found that is seems the MAP also has not
fully convinced the ISP operation guys.
Since there's explicit controversy, why not just publish them both as
experimental. why we must chose one as a standard track? Being a standard
track can eliminate
26 matches
Mail list logo
