+1

I think this is an interesting solution and the WG should spend more time
to discuss this.

/Yiu

On 3/23/11 9:29 AM, "Shishio Tsuchiya" <[email protected]> wrote:

>+1
>I support 4rd as wg item.
>As same as Satoru-san,a lot of Japan operators are interesting in
>stateless tunneling for IPv4 over IPv6 such as 4rd.
>But in my understanding,IETF had not enough time to discuss the solution
>until now.
>I think softwire wg adapt forstateless tunneling for IPv4 over IPv6.
>
>So I supportRemi's proposal.
>
>Regards,
>-Shishio
>(2011/03/23 20:30), Rémi Després wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>>
>> Le 21 mars 2011 à 22:29, IESG Secretary a écrit :
>>
>>> A modified charter has been submitted for the Softwires (softwire)
>>> working group in the Internet Area of the IETF.  The IESG has not made
>>>any
>>> determination as yet.  The modified charter is provided below for
>>> informational purposes only.
>>
>>> Please send your comments to the IESG
>>> mailing list ([email protected]) by Tuesday, March 29, 2011.
>>
>> The main comment of this mail is a suggestion to add 4rd to the
>>charter, in view of the following:
>> - It is a tunnel solution for IPv4 across IPv6 networks
>> - Implementations have already been made
>> - Some ISP's have expressed their preference for this stateless
>>solution over a stateful solution (DS-lite)
>> - A proposed specification is available for WG comments
>>
>> It is distinct from other solutions in that:
>> - Unlike 6rd it is for IPv4 over IPv6
>> - Unlike DS-lite, it optimizes routing between CE's with point to
>>multipoint tunnels and needs no CGN.
>> - Unlike Mesh solutions, it doesn't need a (stateful) BGP between
>>AFBR's (it's route selections are stateless).
>>
>> Proposed additions to the charter text are in line.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> RD
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Softwires (softwire)
>>> ---------------------------------------------------
>>> Current Status: Active Working Group
>>>
>>> Chairs:
>>>      Alain Durand<[email protected]>
>>>      Yong Cui<[email protected]>
>>>
>>> Internet Area Directors:
>>>      Ralph Droms<[email protected]>
>>>      Jari Arkko<[email protected]>
>>>
>>> Internet Area Advisor:
>>>      Ralph Droms<[email protected]>
>>>
>>> Mailing Lists:
>>>      General Discussion: [email protected]
>>>      To Subscribe:       [email protected]
>>>      Archive:
>>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires/current/maillist.html
>>>
>>> Description of Working Group:
>>>
>>>   The Softwires Working Group is specifying the standardization of
>>>   discovery, control and encapsulation methods for connecting IPv4
>>>   networks across IPv6 networks and IPv6 networks across IPv4 networks
>>>   in a way that will encourage multiple, inter-operable
>>>   implementations.
>>>
>>>   For various reasons, native IPv4 and/or IPv6 transport may not be
>>>   available in all cases, and there is a need to tunnel IPv4 in IPv6
>>>   or IPv6 in IPv4 to cross a part of the network which is not IPv4 or
>>>   IPv6 capable. The Softwire Problem Statement, RFC 4925, identifies
>>>   two distinct topological scenarios that the WG will provide
>>>   solutions for: "Hubs and Spokes" and "Mesh." In the former case,
>>>   hosts or "stub" networks are attached via individual,
>>>   point-to-point, IPv4 over IPv6 or IPv6 over IPv4 softwires to a
>>>   centralized Softwire Concentrator. In the latter case (Mesh),
>>>   network islands of one Address Family (IPv4 or IPv6) are connected
>>>   over a network of another Address Family via point to multi-point
>>>   softwires among Address family Border Routers (AFBRs).
>>>
>>>   The WG will reuse existing technologies as much as possible and only
>>>   when necessary, create additional protocol building blocks.
>>>
>>>   For generality, all base Softwires encapsulation mechanisms should
>>>   support all combinations of IP versions over one other (IPv4 over
>>>   IPv6, IPv6 over IPv4, IPv4 over IPv4, IPv6 over IPv6). IPv4 to IPv6
>>>   translation mechanisms (NAT-PT), new addressing schemes, and block
>>>   address assignments are out of scope. DHCP options developed in this
>>>   working group will be reviewed jointly with the DHC WG.  RADIUS
>>>   attributes developed in this working group will be reviewed jointly
>>>   with the RADEXT WG.  The MIB Doctors directorate will be asked to
>>>   review any MIB modules developed in the SOFTWIRE working group.  BGP
>>>   and other routing and signaling protocols developed in this group
>>>   will be reviewed jointly with the proper working groups and other
>>>   workings that may take interest (e.g. IDR, L3VPN, PIM, LDP, SAAG,
>>>   etc).
>>>
>>>   The specific work areas for this working group are:
>>>
>>>   1. Developments for Mesh softwires topology; the Mesh topology work
>>>      will be reviewed in the l3vpn and idr WGs
>>>      - multicast
>>>      - MIB module
>>>
>>>   2. Developments for 6rd:
>>>      - multicast
>>>      - operational specification
>>>      - RADIUS option for 6rd server
>>>      - MIB module
>>>
>>>   3. Developments for Dual-Stack Lite (DS-Lite):
>>>      - multicast
>>>      - operational specification
>>>      - RADIUS option for AFTR
>>>      - proxy extensions; GI-DS-Lite; DS-Lite with no NAT or NAT on the
>>>        B4 element
>>>      - MIB module
>>>
>>>   4. Finalize discovery and configuration mechanisms for a gateway to
>>>      use DS-Lite or 6rd; these discovery and configuration mechanisms
>>>      must take into a account other operating environments such as
>>>      dual-stack and tunneling mechanisms not defined by the softwire
>>>      WG.  Development of new mechanisms will involve the dhc and/or
>>>      v6ops WGs as appropriate
>>
>> 5. Development for 4rd (stateless tunneling for IPv4 over IPv6)
>>    - architecture and protocol specification
>>    - operational specification
>>    - MIB module
>>>
>>> Other work items would require WG approval and rechartering.
>>>
>>> Goals and Milestones:
>>> Apr 2011 Submit DS-lite RADIUS option for Proposed Standard
>>> Apr 2011 Adopt DS-lite operational document as WG document
>>> Jul 2011 Submit 6rd RADIUS option for Proposed Standard
>>> Jul 2011 Submit GI DS-lite for Proposed Standard
>>> Jul 2011 Adopt B4NAT as WG document
>> July 2011 Adopt the 4rd architecture an protocol document as WG document
>>> Aug 2011 Adopt 6rd operational document as WG document
>>> Aug 2011 Adopt Multicast extensions document as WG document
>>> Aug 2011 Submit DS-lite operational document for Informational
>>> Sep 2011 Submit B4NAT for Informational
>>> Nov 2011 Submit Multicast extensions document for Informational
>>> Nov 2011 Submit 6rd operational document for Informational
>>> Nov 2011 Adopt 6rd MIB module as WG document
>>> Nov 2011 Adopt DS-lite MIB module as WG document
>>> Nov 2011 Adopt Mesh topology MIB module as WG document
>> Nov 2011 Submit the 4rd architecture an protocol document for Proposed
>>Standard
>> Nov 2011 Adopt the 4rd operational document as WG document
>> Nov 2011 Adopt the 4rd MIB module as WG document
>>> Nov 2012 Submit 6rd MIB module for Proposed Standard
>>> Nov 2012 Submit DS-lite MIB module for Proposed Standard
>>> Nov 2012 Submit Mesh topology MIB module for Proposed Standard
>> Nov 2012 Submit 4rd operational document for Informational
>> Nov 2012 Submit 4rd MIB module for Proposed Standard
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Softwires mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Softwires mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Softwires mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires

Reply via email to