Hi Satoru,
What I have done is I clarified the text as follows:
o Complexity: Reflects the complexity level of understanding the
algorithm and the expected complexity to configure an
implementation.
Is this fine or you think we need to elaborate further?
Cheers,
Med
Hi Med,
More inline please,
On 9/7/2011 1:22 PM, mohamed.boucad...@orange-ftgroup.com wrote:
*) Is the focus of the document (properties used) on the whole address
architecture/format, or just on the algorithms to build port sets? As
in some proposals, for example 4rd, the port indexing
Hi Mohamed,
I am a developer of 4rd which is used by Nejc. From my perspective, the
complexity is not coming from the algorithm itself but I think the complex is
depend on the implementation as well. So, I don't think it is good to make a
conclusion with a given implementation only. In fact, I
Le 7 sept. 2011 à 09:55, Satoru Matsushima a écrit :
...
And from my experience, none of configuration complexity for 4rd
implementations. These don't require any complicated configuration to
generate port-set from port-set ID.
+1 (in addition to my personal comments)
RD
Med,
More comments in line.
Le 7 sept. 2011 à 07:35, mohamed.boucad...@orange-ftgroup.com
mohamed.boucad...@orange-ftgroup.com a écrit :
Dear Gang,
As per the following property:
o Complexity: Complexity level of the algorithm
I agree this can be split into several sub items but in
Hi Med,
Thank you for the detailed analysis of our draft.
Please see some first comments in line.
Le 7 sept. 2011 à 07:22, mohamed.boucad...@orange-ftgroup.com
mohamed.boucad...@orange-ftgroup.com a écrit :
Hi Jacni,
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
De : Jacni Qin
Le 22 août 2011 à 19:41, Cameron Byrne a écrit :
2011/8/22 Nejc Škoberne n...@skoberne.net:
Dear Cameron,
some pressure. IMHO, i believe that static over-subscription ratios
required by A+P will not meaningfully keep pace with the rapid growth
in the number of internet nodes.
I would
Oops,
e) to be deleted from the list below (same feature as c))
Le 7 sept. 2011 à 11:02, Rémi Després a écrit :
Hi Med,
Thank you for the detailed analysis of our draft.
Please see some first comments in line.
Le 7 sept. 2011 à 07:22, mohamed.boucad...@orange-ftgroup.com
Dear all,
We submitted a new I-D identifying the requirements to be met when designing
the format of IPv4-embedded IPv6 addresses/prefixes enclosing the port
information. The first list of requirements is available at:
Re-,
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
De : Jacni Qin [mailto:ja...@jacni.com]
Envoyé : mercredi 7 septembre 2011 10:12
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP
Cc : Wojciech Dec; softwires@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [Softwires] Analysis of Port Indexing Algorithms
Thanks so much, Dan.
Hope you can join the interim meeting.
Yong
-Original Message-
From: Dan Wing dw...@cisco.com
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 16:37:19 -0700
To: 'Alain Durand' adur...@juniper.net, softwires@ietf.org, Yong Cui
cuiy...@tsinghua.edu.cn
Subject: RE: [Softwires] Call for
mohamed.boucad...@orange-ftgroup.com wrote, on 09/07/2011 03:28 AM:
What I have done is I clarified the text as follows:
o Complexity: Reflects the complexity level of understanding the
algorithm and the expected complexity to configure an
implementation.
A subjective
Dear Maoke,
Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med
De : Maoke [mailto:fib...@gmail.com]
Envoyé : mercredi 7 septembre 2011 15:43
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP
Objet : Re: [Softwires] Requirements for extending IPv6 addresses with port
range
Hi Satoru-san, Tetsuya-san,
As you have seen, I-D.despres-4rd-addmapping includes for the first time an
explanation about use cases of the Domain IPv6 suffix (sec 5.5 titled The CPE
cascade option).
As originators of the need for this option, could you please check what is
written and tell
Alain,
The agenda for the interim meeting contradicts what was said during the
IETF81 v6ops (thanks to the recording (.mp3 url) and corresponding
transcript below), so I would appreciate any clarity you could provide.
With such a narrow-defined agenda, which doesn't allow discussion,
analysis,
Hi Med,
In line with [TT2]...
Best Regards,
Tina
From: mohamed.boucad...@orange-ftgroup.com
[mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange-ftgroup.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 12:06 AM
To: Tina TSOU; Jacni Qin
Cc: softwires@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [Softwires] Comments on
Yiu,
Thank you for your good comments, even in the hurricane.
I am proposing modify the texts in the document to be more accurate since PMTU
is unable to avoid fragmentation here. Cache in mAFTR maybe one possible way,
but I agree that it is more complicated. For the time being, there are two
Hi Yiu,
Thank you for your prompt reply.
I am not saying the multicast path must be consistent with unicast path. I was
trying to explain that PMTU is not a good way to avoid fragmentation in this
scenario.
Anyway, my proposal to the draft is to delete the texts after or in section
6.3.
In the appendix we use v and h represent the IPv4 subnet (hex) and host
index (hex). The length of v is (s), and the length of h is (k) as shwon
in Figure 2.
Could you kindly elaborate that more? How could a specific
IPv4-translatable address be derived? I can't fully follow the
algorithm. It
Alain:
I have a question. In your recent note to softwire, you seem to be changing the
charter that you and Jari stated in v6ops at IETF-81. At IETF-81, you stated
that there was no need for a translation-related working group because
translation (specifically the dIVI proposal, but more
Fred:
The way I phrased the call for the interim meeting on the mailling list might
have created some unwanted confusion.
Yong and I are going to publish the agenda for the interim meeting very soon.
There will be ample time to discuss the various propositions on the table in
the 'stateless'
On Sep 7, 2011, at 1:58 PM, Alain Durand wrote:
Fred:
The way I phrased the call for the interim meeting on the mailling list might
have created some unwanted confusion.
Yong and I are going to publish the agenda for the interim meeting very soon.
There will be ample time to discuss
I hope the agenda I just published will clear things up.
- Alain
On Sep 7, 2011, at 4:19 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) wrote:
Alain,
The agenda for the interim meeting contradicts what was said during the
IETF81 v6ops (thanks to the recording (.mp3 url) and corresponding
transcript
Re-,
On 9/7/2011 11:03 PM, Rémi Després wrote:
Hi Satoru-san, Tetsuya-san,
As you have seen, I-D.despres-4rd-addmapping includes for the first time an explanation
about use cases of the Domain IPv6 suffix (sec 5.5 titled The CPE cascade
option).
As originators of the need for this option,
24 matches
Mail list logo
