RE: draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00

[Sheng Jiang <shengjiang@huawei.com>]

>From: Dan Wing [mailto:dwing@cisco.com] 

>> We can fix it in 01 version by putting v6ops into the draft name.
>
>Renaming a draft starts it at -00.

Thanks, we can rename it with 00 and WG name.

>Anyway, regarding your draft:  it says that the CGN has to 
>terminate the 6-over-4 tunnel.  Couldn't some other device -- 
>not necessarily the CGN -- terminate that tunnel?  If so, then 
>I believe your proposal is very much just a NAT44 ("CGN") and 
>a 6-over-4 tunnel from the in-home gateway to some device that 
>terminates the tunnel and has IPv6 Internet connectivity.  
>This tunnel concentrator might belong to the ISP providing 
>IPv4 service, but it might also be offered by someone else on 
>the Internet (as a separate service), in which case the 
>6-over-4 tunnel might actually go *across* the service 
>provider's NAT44 ("CGN").

Yes, your understanding is right. NAT44 and 6-over-4 tunnel can be splitted. They
are separate technologies.

In our proposal, we suggest to integrate NAT44 and 6-over-4 tunnel into a same
device box (CGN) so that ISPs can deploy it with a clear IPv6 migration strategy.
Here, we may extend the concept of CGN a little bit. When we talk about CGN, we are
actually referring to a carrier-grade device, which integrates NAT functions and
other integrated technologies.

Best regards,

Sheng

>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@cisco.com] 
>> >Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 4:55 PM
>> >To: Sheng Jiang
>> >Cc: 'IPv6 Operations'; 'Brian Carpenter'
>> >Subject: Re: Agenda issue
>> >
>> >OK. I truly wish you had put the working group moniker in the 
>> >draft name (individual submission to a named working group), 
>> >as it is hard to keep track of work in a working group with 
>> >individual submission names.
>> >
>> >On Mar 4, 2009, at 7:00 PM, Sheng Jiang wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi, Fred,
>> >>
>> >> We have submitted a new draft, 
>> >draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00. I think 
>> >> we are already on the vows agenda. Are we? If no yet, please 
>> >count us 
>> >> in.
>> >> Thanks.
>> >>
>> >> Best regards,
>> >>
>> >> Sheng
>> >>
>> >>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
>> >>> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker
>> >>> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 10:16 AM
>> >>> To: IPv6 Operations
>> >>> Subject: Agenda issue
>> >>>
>> >>> I have gotten a number of folks asking for time on the 
>> >agenda, but I 
>> >>> have a problem:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> -rw-rw-r--  1 fred  fred   19268 Sep 10 05:33 
>draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-
>> >>> guard-01.txt
>> >>> -rw-rw-r--  1 fred  fred   61870 Sep 29 08:52 draft-miyata-v6ops-
>> >>> snatpt-02.txt
>> >>> -rw-rw-r--  1 fred  fred   48468 Oct  1 10:58 draft-endo-v6ops-
>> >>> dnsproxy-01.txt
>> >>> -rw-rw-r--  1 fred  fred   43841 Oct 15 10:48 draft-ietf-v6ops- 
>> >>> tunnel-
>> >>> security-concerns-
>> >>> 01.txt
>> >>> -rw-rw-r--  1 fred  fred   18562 Oct 15 10:48 
>> draft-krishnan-v6ops-
>> >>> teredo-update-04.txt
>> >>> -rw-rw-r--  1 fred  fred   53090 Oct 30 10:22 
>> >draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-
>> >>> router-03.txt
>> >>> -rw-rw-r--  1 fred  fred   36662 Nov  3 10:15 
>> >draft-bajko-v6ops-port-
>> >>> restricted-ipaddr-a
>> >>> ssign-02.txt
>> >>> -rw-rw-r--  1 fred  fred   48973 Nov  3 11:06 
>> draft-luo-v6ops-6man-
>> >>> shim6-lbam-00.txt
>> >>> -rw-rw-r--  1 fred  fred   30429 Nov  3 14:26 draft-chown-v6ops- 
>> >>> rogue-
>> >>> ra-02.txt
>> >>> -rw-rw-r--  1 fred  fred  134587 Nov  3 16:14
>> >>> draft-thaler-v6ops- teredo-extensions-02.tx t
>> >>> -rw-rw-r--  1 fred  fred   16462 Feb 17 14:52 
>> draft-rgaglian-v6ops-
>> >>> v6inixp-01.txt
>> >>> -rw-rw-r--  1 fred  fred    9716 Feb 18 08:01 
>> draft-denis-v6ops-nat-
>> >>> addrsel-00.txt
>> >>> -rw-rw-r--  1 fred  fred   41369 Feb 23 22:05 draft-bnss-v6ops-
>> >>> upnp-00.txt
>> >>> -rw-rw-r--  1 fred  fred   19211 Mar  4 14:11 
>> >draft-vyncke-vdv-v6ops-
>> >>> conf-stats-00.txt
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I see four new drafts post-Minneapolis. The Rogue RA and Teredo 
>> >>> drafts, whose last call completed several months ago and 
>> >the write-up 
>> >>> is awaiting new drafts, don't have new drafts.
>> >>>
>> >>> Hello? Anyone out there? I need new drafts (cut-off date 
>> is Friday) 
>> >>> for anything folks expect to discuss in the WG meeting...
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>> 
>> 
>