for
draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-09.txt
To: Jianping Wu jianp...@cernet.edu.cn, Peng Wu pengwu@gmail.com,
Yong Cui y...@csnet1.cs.tsinghua.edu.cn, Olivier Vautrin
oliv...@juniper.net, Yiu L. Lee yiu_...@cable.comcast.com, Olivier
Vautrin oliv...@juniper.net
A new version of I-D, draft
Dear Suresh,
Many thanks for your valuable comments on the draft.
We will revise the document and fix all the issues. Once the
submission system is available again, we will submit a new version
asap.
Best Regards,
Peng
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Suresh Krishnan
suresh.krish...@ericsson.com
Jiang Dong
Peng Wu
Mingwei Xu
Filename: draft-ietf-softwire-mesh-mib-02.txt
Pages : 14
Date: 2013-02-23
Abstract:
This memo defines a portion of the Management
Hi Med,
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 4:54 PM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
The feature described in this draft can be easily integrated in the current
unified CPE effort (binding mode: MAP1:1/Lw4over6) or the document needs to
be extended to cover the port restriction feature.
Hi chairs,
(Peng Wu, Lightweight 4over6: An Extension to the DS-Lite
Architecture,
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite/,10min)
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:47 PM, Yong Cui cuiy...@tsinghua.edu.cn wrote:
Hi folks,
We will have two sessions in the coming IETF
Jianping Wu
Peng Wu
Olivier Vautrin
Yiu L. Lee
Filename: draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-04.txt
Pages : 13
Date: 2012-10-13
Abstract
Hi Suresh,
Thanks for reviewing the draft and provding valuable comments.
Answers inline.
In general all the issues should be easy to fix. Please expect a new
version soon.
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Suresh Krishnan
suresh.krish...@ericsson.com wrote:
Hi authors,
I went over this
Hi chairs,
I support both.
Thanks
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Suresh Krishnan
suresh.krish...@ericsson.com wrote:
Hi all,
During the softwire WG meeting at IETF84 a series of questions* to
determine the preferred solution in the meeting room indicated that the
sense of the room was
Dear Chairs,
I support MAP-E as the basis, and -T 4rd as experimental/informational.
Let's move forward.
Thanks for the joyful experience in Vancouver meeting.
On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 6:02 AM, Suresh Krishnan
suresh.krish...@ericsson.com wrote:
Hi all,
During the softwire WG meeting at
On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 9:28 PM, Qiong bingxu...@gmail.com wrote:
Woj,
According to your description, it is clear that the way to deal with EA=0 is
quite different with EA0. Mixing them together will not only make MAP
losing the initial no state in the ISP network paradigm spirit, but also
Ole,
As I suggested earlier, you could simply say that the WHOLE
ARCHITECTURE is based on IPv4-IPv6 address embedding and because
setting EA bits=0 changes this very basic assumption, it's not
allowed/supported in MAP.
IMHO it's the best way to keep MAP clean and clear. And I don't think
it'll
Hi Behcet,
About the statement of do not use A+P at the customer level, could
you provide some background information, For example list the reasons?
BTW, for the record, what does customer mean exactly here? Is home
gateway also a customer-level terminology, or you only mean do not
apply A+P to
i like the philosophy of multi-protocol socket. however, i moderately
doubt the multi-protocol socket v2.0 is a perfect plan for every cases.
in a quite good hotel, we see typically one 'multi-protocol socket' while
a lot of local-standard sockets. i never think it will make me happy if i
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Satoru Matsushima
satoru.matsush...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2012/06/27, at 15:38, Peng Wu wrote:
Oh, you don't argue that OSPF covers an use case which is also covered by
RIP. So then why are you arguing that an use case of MAP is eventually same
with the LW46
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Satoru Matsushima
satoru.matsush...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Maoke,
On 2012/06/27, at 10:48, Maoke wrote:
dear Satoru,
2012/6/26 Satoru Matsushima satoru.matsush...@gmail.com
On 2012/06/27, at 0:11, Qiong wrote:
Agree with Ian.
MAP is designed and
Hi Satoru,
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Satoru Matsushima
satoru.matsush...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Qiong,
On 2012/06/25, at 15:06, Qiong wrote:
Hi Satoru,
Would you please point out in which presentation in the Beijing Interim
meeting illustrated per-subscriber mapping as one
Satoru,
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Satoru Matsushima
satoru.matsush...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Maoke-san,
On 2012/06/25, at 12:07, Maoke wrote:
hi Satoru-san, Qiong, and all,
i think the current 1:1 mode text of the draft should be tuned or, it would
be better, to be removed.
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 4:52 PM, Satoru Matsushima
satoru.matsush...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Peng,
On 2012/06/25, at 17:37, Peng Wu wrote:
Please find it out on page 14 from following url:
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/82/slides/softwire-2.pdf
I think that's not what Alain meant. If you
This is ... ...
Just take a look at the title of slide 15: so you are for the
statement of MAP is a solution of per subscriber mappings on CPE?
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 5:12 PM, Satoru Matsushima
satoru.matsush...@gmail.com wrote:tak
Hi Peng,
On 2012/06/25, at 18:08, Peng Wu wrote
Satoru,
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Satoru Matsushima
satoru.matsush...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Peng,
On 2012/06/25, at 17:50, Peng Wu wrote:
Hmm, I've read 'draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite' as you called
'lightweight 4over6'. LW46 for short, it looks me that MAP just provides
Hi Joel,
Thanks for the clarification. Fully agree with the 4 types.
Two additional comments:
1. From implementation view, the 2nd and the 3rd are more close to the
4th because there are binding table lookup procedure in data plane,
while the 1st depends on algorithmic address calculation
Woj,
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Wojciech Dec wdec.i...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
taking a step back to discuss some items in more detail, and hopefully move
this discussion forward:
1. Domain size
The MAP architecture does not prescribe the size of a domain, and neither
does it
Hi Qiong, Satoru and all,
I should thank Qiong for pointing this out. I gotta say I'm a bit shocked.
If I understand the procedures of IETF correctly, a WG document should
reflect the consensus of the WG. MAP is approved by the WG as a
stateless solution. As a participator in Softwire, I didn't
, it would disqualify MAP as a solution for the motivation draft.
AFAIK, the MAP Design Team could propose a change, but such a dramatic
change by introducing states in the network would require WG approval. I
would like the chairs to clarify this.
Thanks,
Yiu
On 6/24/12 12:21 PM, Peng Wu
If I recall correctly, the Interim meeting dicussed the rationality of
per-subsriber stateful solutions ASIDE FROM the stateless solutions,
rather than 'per-subscriber mapping' could be one characteristic of
MAP solution
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Satoru Matsushima
Woj,
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Wojciech Dec wdec.i...@gmail.com wrote:
There is basic question regarding this draft, one that has also been raised
at previous WG meetings: why is it needed?.
It's actually written in section 4 of the draft.
There is a deeper issue here: This draft seems
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
Med,
From protocol level, the difference between public 4over6 and
lightweight 4over6(b4-translated-ds-lite) lies in port-set support.
The extra efforts of lw 4over6 are as follows: (1) port set support in
DHCP provisioning; (2) NAT on the initiator side.(whose address pool
is not a full address
Hi all,
We have pubished a new version of the lightweight 4over6 draft. The
draft describes a per-subscriber IPv4-over-IPv6 Hub Spoke mechanism
with port-set provisioning support.
The -06 version merges with draft-penno-softwire-sdnat-02 and makes
the draft compatible with both use cases. Among
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 time.
2) Then this falls in the manner of
Great. So ISC already has DHCPv4 over IPv6 implementation now.
//Pity I couldn't make it on Sunday.
2012/3/25 Alistair Woodman awood...@isc.org:
All, you are cordially invited…
Francis Dupont, Paul Selkirk and Alain Durant are hosting a live demo of
draft-penno-softwire-sdnat-02.
The
Hi Alain,
Thanks. It really helps.
Configuration for every IPv6 subscriber, not every possible IPv6 address in
the various /64
This is actually not that bad. Compare to BNGs that do the same and more
today for IPv4 or IPv6.
In the end, this is about clustering subscribers on groups of
. This draft is a work item of the Softwires Working Group of the
IETF.
Title : Public IPv4 over IPv6 Access Network
Author(s) : Yong Cui
Jianping Wu
Peng Wu
Chris Metz
Hi Alain,
It's a little confusing now. Let me try to get things clear.
So the sd-nat-02 is not quite similar to the earlier version, the
mechanism somehow changes.
In my understanding, now the principle of the mechanism is similar to
the lightweight 4over6 draft, but I may miss something here.
...
--Peng Wu
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 07:16:38 -0800
Alain Durand adur...@juniper.net wrote:
If you intend to present in Paris, please send Yong and I a request by
3/7.
- Alain.
___
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman
Hi Reinaldo,
inlines :)
--
Peng Wu
The first and the major one is that, if we just take ds-lite and have static
port set allocation in the concentrator, the concentrator still has to keep
the per-session NAT table and perform the translation, while in lightweight
4over6, NAT
discussions on
stateless vs. lightweight 4over6 in the Introduction part of our draft. For
example, think of
the case when either the B4 IPv6 addresses or the IPv4 address pool are
scattered. Then the
the statless mapping rule/algorithm on the AFTR can be quite complicated.
--
Peng Wu
Hi
Hi Olivier,
see inlines :)
--
Peng Wu
Hello, thanks for this interesting draft.
In your use case, could you explain if every CPE/Host need to reach
Internet? That would be the case in a typical Broadband deployment but
perhaps not in your deployment scenario.
Could be every CPE/Host
-515
--
Peng Wu
Dear all,
If you are attending the Interim Meeting, please find in the attachment the
information about time, location, social event, lunch, maps and routes.
Thanks.
--
Peng Wu, Tsinghua Univ.
!DSPAM:1,4e7ed3d932906718655857
.
--
Peng Wu
PhD candidate
Department of Computer Science Technology
Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
-
From：xiaohong.deng
Date：2011-08-08 11:59:44
To：adur...@juniper.net; m...@townsley.net
CC：softwires; rdroms
Hi Yiu and all,
Agree that the CE-CE communication will be possible for LW AFTR because the
rules are not store in the CE but in the LW AFTR.
Should be CE--LW AFTR--CE style, is that what you mean
here?
But my main question is both technical are so similar, can we have a
Hi Yiu,
Agree, both.
Couple thoughts.
1. The current draft doesn't specify the static mapping rule like what 4rd
does. So I guess we can't compare this to 4rd.
2. I keep thinking what are the difference of this and PRR. I guess
Qiong's PRR definition is the forwarding decision would be done in
Hi Gang,
Before making such comparison (of course it should be as fair as possible),
I think we need to state what solution space we are targeting and what
category mode we should take care.
If I understand correctly, I would paraphrase as following categories.
a) Stateful+Dynamic port sets:
Hi all,
I think definitely we should define the first case, isn't reduce redundant
delivery the original spirit of multicast? Deliver multicast over an IPv6
multicast disabled network doesn't seem quite persuading, except the legacy
case.
So if we need to choose one, then I prefer the first
Hi Satoru,
However, if we introduce multiple domains with multiple IPv4 prefix pools (
the number of each domain is N1, N2, N3,... Nm) , then the entry number of
IPv4 routing table will be N1+N2+N3+..+Nm. In current situation, Nm would
not be a small number anymore. So maybe some more
want.
--
Peng Wu
PhD candidate
Department of Computer Science Technology
Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
-
From：Tina TSOU
Date：2011-07-28 19:04:47
To：Satoru Matsushima; Qiong
. To achieve that, port restrcted
IPv4 addresses are allocated to initiators in a flexible way independent of
IPv6 network in the middle.
Comments and suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.
--
Peng Wu
2011-07-11
Dear chairs,
We would like to present the following two drafts of Public 4over6 together.
One time slot of 15 minutes would be great.
PresenterDraft
Peng Wu DHCPv4 Behavior over IP-IP tunnel
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-cui-softwire-dhcp-over-tunnel
is involved.
Comments and suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks.
--
Peng Wu
2011-07-11
-
From：internet-drafts
Date：2011-07-11 15:49:48
To：weapon
CC：weapon; jianping; yong
Subject：New
there, and the only confusion is that the mechanism name hasn't matched
yet.
We'll come up with a new version with evolvement before next IETF for WG
adoption.
--
Peng Wu
PhD candidate
Department of Computer Science Technology
Tsinghua University
Hi Remi,
please see inlines
--
Peng Wu
PhD candidate
Department of Computer Science Technology
Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
-
From：R閙i_Despr閟
Date：2011-04-06 20:57:34
To：Yong Cui
that.
--
Peng Wu
PhD candidate
Department of Computer Science Technology
Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
-
From：Ole Troan
Date：2011-03-31 16:46:06
To：Lee, Yiu
CC：softwires@ietf.org list
Subject：Re: [Softwires] Questions on: draft-cui
52 matches
Mail list logo
