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 of
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
to
the
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 of operators to have a
stateless solution standardized,
.
Cheers,
Med
-Message d'origine-
De : francis.dup...@fdupont.fr [mailto:francis.dup...@fdupont.fr]
Envoyé : samedi 11 février 2012 09:30
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP
Cc : softwires@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [Softwires] Closing
draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation
In your
The fundamental issue is total cost to the operator. Different operators
have different cost structures, hence need different engineering
solutions. This isn't a matter of using precise language -- stateless
is a term of convenience fitting the perceptions of the particular group
of persons
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 to
the more advanced stateful solutions (it doesn't even
: liu dapeng [mailto:maxpass...@gmail.com]
Envoyé : jeudi 23 février 2012 12:04
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP
Cc : Softwire Chairs; softwires@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [Softwires] Closing
draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation
Hi Med,
I think it is still not clear about
Cheers,
Med
-Message d'origine-
De : liu dapeng [mailto:maxpass...@gmail.com]
Envoyé : jeudi 23 février 2012 12:04
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP
Cc : Softwire Chairs; softwires@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [Softwires] Closing
draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation
Hi Med
LC? Thanks.
Cheers,
Med
-Message d'origine-
De : francis.dup...@fdupont.fr [mailto:francis.dup...@fdupont.fr]
Envoyé : samedi 11 février 2012 09:30
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP
Cc : softwires@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [Softwires] Closing
draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6
Chairs; softwires@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [Softwires] Closing
draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation
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
Objet : Re: [Softwires] Closing
draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation
In your previous mail you wrote:
(1) Either issue a WG LC, or
+1
francis.dup...@fdupont.fr
___
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org
: Thursday, February 23, 2012 7:04 PM
To: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com
Cc: softwires@ietf.org; Softwire Chairs
Subject: Re: [Softwires] Closing draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation
Hi Med,
I think it is still not clear about the definition of stateless, in
current draft, it says:
stateless
draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation
In your previous mail you wrote:
(1) Either issue a WG LC, or
+1
francis.dup...@fdupont.fr
___
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman
-
De : francis.dup...@fdupont.fr [mailto:francis.dup...@fdupont.fr]
Envoyé : samedi 11 février 2012 09:30
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP
Cc : softwires@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [Softwires] Closing
draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation
In your previous mail you wrote:
(1
] Closing draft-ietf-softwire-stateless-4v6-motivation
On Feb 10, 2012 2:20 AM,
mohamed.boucad...@orange.commailto: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
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
-
In your previous mail you wrote:
(1) Either issue a WG LC, or
+1
francis.dup...@fdupont.fr
___
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
+1
Cheers,
Rajiv
Sent from my Phone
On Feb 11, 2012, at 3:30 AM, Francis Dupont francis.dup...@fdupont.fr wrote:
In your previous mail you wrote:
(1) Either issue a WG LC, or
+1
francis.dup...@fdupont.fr
___
Softwires mailing list
Le 2012-02-11 à 12:43, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) a écrit :
+1
+1
RD
Cheers,
Rajiv
Sent from my Phone
On Feb 11, 2012, at 3:30 AM, Francis Dupont francis.dup...@fdupont.fr
wrote:
In your previous mail you wrote:
(1) Either issue a WG LC, or
+1
francis.dup...@fdupont.fr
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
- develop a solution motivation document to be
Le 2012-02-11 à 15:30, Cameron Byrne a écrit :
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
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
- develop a solution motivation document to be published as an
RFC
- develop a protocol specification response to the
23 matches
Mail list logo
