: lw4o6
(draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite)
All the three modes must support the ability to assign a
full IPv4 address.
Cheers,
Med
-Message d'origine-
De : softwires-boun...@ietf.org
[mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Reinaldo Penno
Envoyé : lundi 28 mai 2012 07:53
À
/DS-Lite/L46 that this draft provides. L46/MAP/4rd-U all can give a
single, public IP to the CPE. Nobody says you have to give a port range.
From: Qiong bingxu...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 09:23:37 +0800
To: Reinaldo Penno repe...@cisco.com
Cc: Sheng Jiang jiangsh...@huawei.com, Yong Cui
-1
In which significant way this document is different from
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite-06 ?
We can insert one paragraph in the above draft and allow public IPs since
NAT is optional. The two documents even use DHCPv4ov6 as provisioning.
On 5/27/12
On 3/27/12 4:02 AM, Francis Dupont francis.dup...@fdupont.fr wrote:
In your previous mail you wrote:
What was the use case for non-contigous port sets?
= cf draft-tsou-softwire-port-set-algorithms-analysis-01.txt
A good port set definition algorithm must be reversible, easy to
On 3/26/12 8:54 PM, Satoru Matsushima satoru.matsush...@gmail.com
wrote:
As a member of the MAT DT, I am naturally biased in favor of what Xing,
Maoke and Ole said.
I also think that the chair's questions are not adequate. I don't think
that the questions should be which of document the wg
Is there experimental data for MAP running on production networks?
Certainly that is an important point to consider.
On 3/22/12 11:06 PM, Zhang Huanjie ja...@ustc.edu.cn wrote:
4rd-U is in the very early design stage, there is no running code. In
addition, it tries to modify the IPv6 address
From: Wojciech Dec wdec.i...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 13:26:48 +0100
To: Cisco Employee repe...@cisco.com
Cc: Congxiao Bao cx.cer...@gmail.com, Softwires WG softwires@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Path to move forward with 4rd
Hi,
On 23 March 2012 13:10, Reinaldo Penno repe
...@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Reinaldo Penno
Sent: vrijdag 4 november 2011 1:33
To: Poscic, Kristian (Kristian); softwires@ietf.org; beh...@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Softwires] [BEHAVE] Stateless Deterministic NAPT/DS-Lite
Hello Kristian,
comments inline.
On 11/3
On 11/4/11 2:38 AM, Peng Wu peng...@foxmail.com wrote:
Hi Reinaldo,
I just took a brief look at draft-penno-softwire-sdnat-01, to get the basic
idea. Not sure if I understand correctly.
This is a quite customized mechanism rather than just static port set
allocation in the
Can you clarify more ALG issues? It seems to me that whatever ALG issues you
have it will happen irrespective.
On 11/4/11 1:00 AM, Qiong bingxu...@gmail.com wrote:
A quick comment: it seems SD-NAT has introduced double address translation
making use of regular DHCP/Radius. It is very
Hello Chairs,
I would like a slot to present SD-NAT.
Thanks,
Reinaldo
On 11/4/11 5:26 AM, Alain Durand adur...@juniper.net wrote:
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
).
But as you mentioned in previous mail, in case double translation
is optional, double ALG would also be optional.
Anyway, it is an interesting stateless scheme and I would like to discuss with
you in Taipei :)
Sure.
Best wishes
Qiong
On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 8:41 AM, Reinaldo Penno
rpe
Hello Peng,
Some comments inline...
On 11/3/11 5:12 AM, Peng Wu peng...@foxmail.com wrote:
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
?
Yes.
Thanks,
Kris
-Original Message-
From: behave-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:behave-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Reinaldo Penno
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 4:12 PM
To: softwires@ietf.org; beh...@ietf.org
Subject: [BEHAVE] Stateless Deterministic NAPT/DS-Lite
Hello,
we
Hello,
we submitted a new draft detailing our implementation of
Stateless-Deterministic NAPT44 and DS-Lite. (SD-NAT)
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-penno-softwire-sdnat-01
This is a based on our experience with port bucket/chunk allocation and
deterministic NAPT44. In the draft we provide a
and infrastructures.
Cheers,
Rajiv
-Original Message-
From: Reinaldo Penno [mailto:rpe...@juniper.net]
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 12:26 PM
To: Rajiv Asati (rajiva); Simon Perreault; softwires@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Clarification of the stateles/stateful discussion
On 8/4/11 8:04 AM, Simon Perreault simon.perrea...@viagenie.ca wrote:
On 2011-08-04 11:01, Cameron Byrne wrote:
Yes, because these NATs are endpoint-dependent, which is forbidden by
the BEHAVE RFCs.
It is still very usefull and will be deployed regardless.
Right. But the IETF needs
Hello Authors,
Hopefully this is the right list for questions on this draft. Maybe BEHAVE?
In general, is it possible to comments how the requirements of RFC4787,
RFC5382 can be met with this kind of proposal? For example, do we just
re-read RFC4787 substituting 'X' by 'interface' or there is
18 matches
Mail list logo
