[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
BOUNCE v6ops@ops.ietf.org: Non-member submission from [Rémi Després <remi.despres@rd-iptech.com>] (fwd)
- To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
- Subject: BOUNCE v6ops@ops.ietf.org: Non-member submission from [Rémi Després <remi.despres@rd-iptech.com>] (fwd)
- From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
- Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 18:55:41 +0200 (EET)
Approved: drops
From remi.despres@rd-iptech.com Fri Nov 05 12:34:16 2004
Received: from [193.252.22.29] (helo=mwinf0203.wanadoo.fr)
by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.41 (FreeBSD))
id 1CQ3IF-0008lF-UX
for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 05 Nov 2004 12:34:16 +0000
Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by mwinf0203.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with SMTP
id BF32F100008F; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 13:34:14 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Rmi (APuteaux-105-1-3-243.w80-11.abo.wanadoo.fr [80.11.85.243])
by mwinf0203.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with SMTP
id 24556100008E; Fri, 5 Nov 2004 13:34:14 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <006e01c4c333$c29ec530$0200a8c0@Rmi>
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9mi_Despr=E9s?= <remi.despres@rd-iptech.com>
To: <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>, <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
References: <BDB07704.4DFB1%jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
Subject: Re: A personal take on WG's priorities..
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 13:34:12 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.64 (2004-01-11) on psg.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
version=2.64
Jordi, Jim, Pekka,
As explained in http://perso.wanadoo.fr/remi.despres/4to6.htm there seems to
be important missing pieces for a number of desirable transition
configurations, with possible solutions to satisfy these needs.
IMHO, some group work somehere on the subject should be possible.
Rémi
----- Original Message -----
From: "JORDI PALET MARTINEZ" <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
To: <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 12:17 AM
Subject: Re: A personal take on WG's priorities..
Jim,
My view is that we should only work in new transition mechanism if there is
something _really_ not covered already, but we also should work on those "de
facto" mechanism to get standardized if it make sense.
Regards,
Jordi
De: "Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com>
Responder a: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Fecha: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 13:10:57 -0500
Para: "Brian E Carpenter" <brc@zurich.ibm.com>,
<jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
CC: <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Asunto: RE: A personal take on WG's priorities..
But I don't agree we should not work on new emerging transition mechanisms
that in fact are being deployed as we talk here.
/jim
Pekka Savola wrote:
Hi,
Based on the discussion on what the WG should be doing, I
cooked up
my
**personal** list of what I consider to be priorities, in
some rough
categories. As you see, there's a *LOT* that falls under the WG
charter, and there is no way we could work on even 1/3 or 1/4 of
these at the same time. So, there must be some priorization.
I welcome comments especially if you think I've badly
misprioritized
document/work that relates to the v6ops charter.
======
The most important work
- finish enterprise analysis
- finish requirement(s) for tunneling
* to be able to decide whether existing solution(s)
are sufficient
and if not, get started on specifying new ones
- get started on mechanisms (somewhere else?) if needed/necessary
Pretty darn important work
- the last spin at 3GPP analysis doc, updated IMS scenario
- better document the ISP's broadband transition scenarios
* draft-asadullah-v6ops-bb-deployment-scenarios-01
- finish draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2
* waiting for feedback from the IESG telechat..
- adopt and finish draft-tschofenig-v6ops-secure-tunnels-02.txt
* IESG requirement for draft-ietf-v6ops-mech-v2
- figure what to do about the NAT-PT deprecation/analysis
* draft-aoun-v6ops-natpt-deprecate
- (techno-political) document for v4 NAT users
* draft-vandevelde-v6ops-nap
- IPv6-on-by-default work, fixes need to be integrated in
the IETF work
* draft-ietf-v6ops-onlinkassumption
* draft-ietf-v6ops-v6onbydefault
* etc.
Important work
- draft-ietf-v6ops-renumbering-procedure
* needs revision to address IESG comments
- draft-palet-v6ops-tun-auto-disc
- draft-chown-v6ops-vlan-usage
- figuring out how to deal with Mobile IP transition issues
- security overview of IPv6
* draft-savola-v6ops-security-overview
Useful work
- revising 6to4 spec to be clearer, etc.
- draft-palet-v6ops-solution-tun-auto-disc
- draft-chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout-00
- draft-chown-v6ops-port-scanning-implications
Difficult to say whether it has gained sufficient
momentum, and/or
whether this is the right place to do this
- draft-palet-v6ops-auto-trans
- draft-palet-v6ops-ipv6security
- draft-vives-v6ops-ipv6-security-ps
- draft-kondo-quarantine-overview-01.txt
Not sure whether it should be published as RFC, or is sufficiently
relevant
- draft-chown-v6ops-campus-transition
- draft-morelli-v6ops-ipv6-ix