Support. The draft is ready to move forward.
Cheers,
Dapeng Liu
2014-02-14 13:52 GMT+08:00 Suresh Krishnan suresh.krish...@ericsson.com:
Hi all,
This message starts a two week softwire working group last call on
advancing the draft about IPv4 Residual Deployment via IPv6 - a Stateless
Hi Chairs,
I do not aggree with option a). The reason is that there is still no
valid scenario exist today for continue to work on MAP-T. The ACL
scenario for MAP-T does not make sense for operator's real deployment.
We can't work on the solution without problem statement and valid
sceanrio.
?
On the second point, I agree with the existing text.
Tom Taylor
On 13/06/2012 7:42 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
Re-,
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
-Message d'origine-
De : liu dapeng [mailto:maxpass...@gmail.com]
Envoyé : mercredi 13 juin 2012 12:09
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed
.
Hopefully, that could eliminate your concerns.
States should be maintained on other equipments, e.g. customer
premises equipment or host, in ADDRESS SHARING CONTEXT
BRs
Gang
2012/6/14, liu dapeng maxpass...@gmail.com:
Hello Med and all,
I don't agree we move like this way, as yourself said
Hi Med,
Thanks for posting this new version but I guess it doesn't reflect all
the discussion we had. I suggest to make following modifications.
States still should be maintained in other equipments, e.g. customer
premises equipment or host, in order to restrict port numbers within a
dedicated
2012/6/12, Ole Trøan otr...@employees.org:
Ok, then we can make this more clear in our document.
States still should be maintained in other equipments, e.g. customer
premises equipment or host, in order to restrict IP address or port
number
information into the configured context except that
the truth.
Please explain to the WG what truth we are trying to hide in this draft? I
am not convinced we need to say anymore than what we have stated in the
new version.
Thanks,
Yiu
On 6/12/12 11:45 AM, liu dapeng maxpass...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/6/12, Lee, Yiu yiu_...@cable.comcast.com:
Hi
[mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of liu dapeng
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2012 11:47 PM
To: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
Cc: softwires@ietf.org; Yong Cui
Subject: Re: [Softwires] WG last call
ondraft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-
motivation-01
Hi Med:
2012/6/8, mohamed.boucad
-Message d'origine-
De : liu dapeng [mailto:maxpass...@gmail.com]
Envoyé : lundi 11 juin 2012 09:11
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP
Cc : Yong Cui; softwires@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [Softwires] WG last call on
draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation-01
Hi Med,
end to end argument
2012/6/11, Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net:
Le 2012-06-11 à 09:32, liu dapeng a écrit :
Hello Med,
Yes, we are almost converged on this final update.
As you said here, there still need port translation in the host, that
still state in the host.
Note that these states are per
Hi Med:
2012/6/8, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com mohamed.boucad...@orange.com:
Dear Dapeng,
Please see inline.
Cheers,
-Message d'origine-
De : liu dapeng [mailto:maxpass...@gmail.com]
Envoyé : vendredi 8 juin 2012 13:49
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP
Cc : Yong Cui; softwires
2012/6/7, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com mohamed.boucad...@orange.com:
Dear Dapeng,
Please see inline.
Cheers;
Med
-Message d'origine-
De : softwires-boun...@ietf.org
[mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de liu dapeng
Envoyé : mardi 5 juin 2012 10:49
À : Yong Cui
Cc
Hello all,
I am not sure this version resolves my concerns regarding the possible
misleading by the word stateless. To avoid this misleading, I
suggest the following changes:
1. Change the title to Motivations for Carrier-side Stateless IPv4
over IPv6 Migration Solutions. Since this document is
2012/2/29, Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net:
Le 2012-02-29 à 10:53, liu dapeng a écrit :
2012/2/28, Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net:
2012-02-28 15:06, liu dapeng :
...
2012/2/27, Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net:
...
The draft only reflects the wish of an number
2012/2/28, Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net:
2012-02-28 15:06, liu dapeng :
...
2012/2/27, Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net:
...
The draft only reflects the wish of an number of operators to have a
stateless solution standardized, acknowledging that this is in addition
2012/2/27, Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net:
Le 2012-02-27 à 12:04, liu dapeng a écrit :
Hi Remi,
Please see my reply inline:
2012/2/27, Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net:
Liu,
Please see more clarification in line.
Le 2012-02-24 à 13:21, liu dapeng a écrit :
2012/2/23
Hi Remi,
Please see my reply inline:
2012/2/27, Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net:
Liu,
Please see more clarification in line.
Le 2012-02-24 à 13:21, liu dapeng a écrit :
2012/2/23, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com mohamed.boucad...@orange.com:
Dear Dapeng,
Are you considering
2012/2/23, Rémi Després despres.r...@laposte.net:
Le 2012-02-23 à 12:03, liu dapeng a écrit :
Hi Med,
I think it is still not clear about the definition of stateless, in
current draft, it says:
stateless denotes a solution which does not require any per-user state
(see Section
2.3
2012/2/13, Ole Trøan otr...@employees.org:
Cameron,
RFC1958 gives the fundamental principles. search for state.
Yes. But do you think it is achievable for pure stateless?
BR,
Dapeng
cheers,
Ole
On Feb 13, 2012, at 5:02 , Cameron Byrne wrote:
On Feb 12, 2012 7:14 PM, Satoru Matsushima
2012/2/11, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com:
On Feb 10, 2012 2:20 AM, mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote:
Dear WG members,
I would like to close this document so that we can meet the following
item from the WG Charter:
4. Developments for stateless legacy IPv4 carried over IPv6
-
2011/10/9, Zhen Cao zehn@gmail.com:
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Qiong bingxu...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, Gang,
Please see my reply inline.
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 11:14 AM, GangChen phdg...@gmail.com wrote:
As Ole said, for the outside domain traffic (Actually, I never argue
that point
21 matches
Mail list logo
