[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 11:26 AM
> To: Dan Wing
> Cc: Sheng Jiang; IPv6 Operations; Brian Carpenter; guoseu@huawei.com
> Subject: Re: draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00
>
> Dan,
>
> We're describing a scenario. Obviously, there are other similar
> scenarios.
I had asked my question learn if there is benefit to have the ISP's
NAT44 also terminate the IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnel.
> That's why v6ops seems like the obvious place for a
> first discussion, imho.
I concur.
-d
> Brian
>
> On 3/6/09, Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com> wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> > > [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sheng Jiang
> > > Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 1:29 AM
> > > To: 'Fred Baker'
> > > Cc: 'IPv6 Operations'; 'Brian Carpenter'
> > > Subject: RE: Agenda issue
> > >
> > > For sure. We know the draft name rules. When we wrote the
> > > draft, we were not sure
> > > which WG it should be submitted. It seems relevant to both
> > > v6ops and behave.
> >
> > As a BEHAVE co-chair, I haven't seen a request for agenda time
> > for draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00, nor any discussion about the
> > draft on the BEHAVE mailing list.
> >
> > > We can fix it in 01 version by putting v6ops into the draft name.
> >
> > Renaming a draft starts it at -00.
> >
> >
> > 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").
> >
> > -d
> >
> >
> > > 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...
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >