...@gmail.com
Date: Thursday, June 14, 2012 9:07 AM
To: Peng Wu pengwu@gmail.com
Cc: softwires@ietf.org softwires@ietf.org, Yong Cui
cuiy...@tsinghua.edu.cn
Subject: Re: [Softwires] WG last call on
draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-01
Peng,
your answers do not address the key
cuiy...@tsinghua.edu.cn
Subject: Re: [Softwires] WG last call on
draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-01
Peng,
your answers do not address the key concerns:
- Why is this needed, besides that it can be done, as opposed to classic
dual stack?
[YL] The scenario is addressing IPv6-only access
Peng,
your answers do not address the key concerns:
- Why is this needed, besides that it can be done, as opposed to classic
dual stack?
- It requires changes to the client/relay, thus it cannot be simply used
with regular DHCPv4 implementations (note: it doesn't matter that you're
putting a CRA
Hi Woj,
Let me try to answer some of your questions:
From: Wojciech Dec wdec.i...@gmail.com
Date: Thursday, June 14, 2012 9:07 AM
To: Peng Wu pengwu@gmail.com
Cc: softwires@ietf.org softwires@ietf.org, Yong Cui
cuiy...@tsinghua.edu.cn
Subject: Re: [Softwires] WG last call on
draft-ietf
Peng,
On 11 June 2012 20:38, Peng Wu pengwu@gmail.com wrote:
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
On 9 June 2012 05:35, Qi Sun sunqi.csnet@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Ole,
In your previous Email you wrote,
in MAP you do all of that with one single DHCPv6
option...
IMHO, that's because the one DHCPv6 option contains so many KINDS of
information (e.g. PSID, BR's prefix or address, see
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
Peng,
Now there are actually 3 directions for IPv4-over-IPv6 mechanisms,
they have respective application scenarios, pros and cons.
1)stateless, 4rd, MAP
2)per-flow stateful: DS-Lite
3)per-user stateful: public 4over6, lightweight 4over6
As Ole said, the problem is that, do we want
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
Peng,
On 8 June 2012 11:35, Peng Wu pengwu@gmail.com wrote:
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,
Peng,
2012-06-07 à 16:04, Peng Wu:
Hi Ole and all,
Thank you all for the discussions on this topic, as well as sharing
your opinions during the offline discussions in the last couple of
days. Let me try to summarize.
I understand that we MAY adapt MAP to be 4over6-like, or even DS-lite
: Sheng Jiang; Yong Cui; softwires@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [Softwires] WG last call on
draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-01
-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
Hi Ole,
In your previous Email you wrote,
in MAP you do all of that with one single DHCPv6
option...
IMHO, that's because the one DHCPv6 option contains so many KINDS of
information (e.g. PSID, BR's prefix or address, see draft of
map-dhcp-option ).
And with separate provisoning processes ,
@gmail.com]
Envoyé : jeudi 7 juin 2012 18:31
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP
Cc : Yong Cui; softwires@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [Softwires] WG last call on
draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-01
Med,
From protocol level, the difference between public 4over6 and
lightweight 4over6(b4-translated-ds
Qiong,
If public 4over6 is one extreme case of MAP, in which one subscriber
represents one MAP domain, then should we also say that DS-Lite is another
extreme case of MAP, where one application (session) represents one MAP
domain ?
a DS-lite AFTR could be represented by the combination
: Sheng Jiang; Yong Cui; softwires@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [Softwires] WG last call on
draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-01
-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
Qiong, all,
Le 2012-06-07 à 16:23, Qiong a écrit :
Hi Ole,
On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 4:48 PM, Ole Trøan otr...@employees.org wrote:
I think we should still keep the initial feature of these solutions.
all the proposed solutions, including DS-lite shares a large set of
commonalities.
Cui; softwires@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [Softwires] WG last call on
draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-01
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
Yiu,
AFAIK, this will couple the IPv4 address and IPv6 prefix. This isn't the
requirement for Public 4over6.
with MAP you may embed parts of the IPv4 address into the IPv6 prefix and
optionally a PSID.
the remaining bits are provisioned with DHCP (or something else). how many bits
you embed
Support for moving to the next step.
Cheers
Yu
-Original Message-
From: softwires-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Yong Cui
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:31 PM
To: softwires@ietf.org
Cc: Yong Cui
Subject: [Softwires] WG last call on
2012-05-30 15:55, Ole Trøan:
public 4over6 is exactly the same as MAP in hub and spoke mode with one
mapping rule per subscriber.
Could you clarify how this relates to the MAP-rule definition saying Each MAP
node in the domain has the same set of rules.
public 4over6 is exactly the same as MAP in hub and spoke mode with one mapping
rule per subscriber.
and if Reinaldo is correct, also the same as b4-translated-ds-lite.
we have 4 mechanisms doing almost the exact same thing (4rd, MAP, 4over6,
B4-translated).
I would suggest that we do not
Hi Reinaldo,
In my understanding, public 4over6 is mainly designed for host-orientied
server behind the CPE. So the senario of public 4over6 is different from
lightweight 4over6. It is better to be described seperately.
I support it to be advanced. Thanks.
Best wishes
Qiong
On Mon, May 28,
cuiy...@tsinghua.edu.cn, softwires@ietf.org softwires@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Softwires] WG last call on
draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-01
Hi Reinaldo,
In my understanding, public 4over6 is mainly designed for host-orientied
server behind the CPE. So the senario of public 4over6
support.
Mingwei
--
Mingwei Xu
2012-05-28
-
发件人：Yong Cui
发送日期：2012-05-27 22:40:35
收件人：softwires@ietf.org
抄送：Yong Cui
主题：[Softwires] WG last call on draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-01
Hi
The document looks mature for being advanced.
Sheng Jiang
-Original Message-
From: softwires-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Yong Cui
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:31 PM
To: softwires@ietf.org
Cc: Yong Cui
Subject: [Softwires] WG last call on
Support it move to the next step.
Tina
On May 27, 2012, at 7:30 AM, Yong Cui cuiy...@tsinghua.edu.cn wrote:
Hi folks,
This is a wg last call on draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6-01.
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-public-4over6/
As usual, please send editorial
-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
28 matches
Mail list logo
