答复: draft-jiang-incremental-CGN (was: RE: Agenda)

[Sheng Jiang <shengjiang@huawei.com>]

As Brian said, our draft does not propose any new transition mechanisms.
Instead, it is IPv6 deployment scenarios. So it is right covered in the
V6OPS charter: "analyze solutions for deploying IPv6 within common network
environments, such as ISP Networks,...". It was the reason we agreed to
present it in V6OPS rather than in BEHAVE or SOFTWIRE.

Of course, we are welcome for comments and prepare to improve our draft
accordingly.

Sheng

> I asked Gunter to send me his notes. Per them, I asked the working
> group what should be done with the draft, and found that few had read
> it. So I encouraged people to read it and comment to the list.
> 
> If it is adopted in an IETF working group, it will have to be in one
> that is chartered to work on transition mechanisms; note that behave
> and softwires are already working on these, and 6rd is being taken to
> softwires as an alternative tunneling approach. After we have comments
> on this draft, we will be an in better position to discuss its next
> steps.
> 
> On Mar 25, 2009, at 1:36 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> 
> > Fred,
> >
> > Maybe I am confused; the chairs asked a question after
> > the draft presentation, and I missed the boat on raising
> > my hand. What was the question that was asked - and is
> > it too late to still raise my hand?
> >
> > Fred
> > fred.l.templin@boeing.com
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@cisco.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 1:32 PM
> >> To: Templin, Fred L
> >> Cc: Sheng Jiang; IPv6 Operations; Brian E Carpenter
> >> Subject: Re: draft-jiang-incremental-CGN (was: RE: Agenda)
> >>
> >> As I noted a few minutes ago regarding 6rd, and as we discussed when
> >> you wanted ISATAP picked up as a working group item, the charter
> >> precludes transition mechanisms as working group topics. You need to
> >> discuss this with an AD or an appropriate working group.
> >>
> >> On Mar 25, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> >>
> >>> Had intended to say this at the mike, but I would like
> >>> to see this work taken as a wg item. Reason is that I
> >>> see a continued need for IPv4 clients to access IPv4
> >>> and IPv6 servers. Can we have this as a wg item?
> >>>
> >>> Fred
> >>> fred.l.templin@boeing.com
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Sheng Jiang [mailto:shengjiang@huawei.com]
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:29 PM
> >>>> To: 'Fred Baker'; 'IPv6 Operations'
> >>>> Cc: 'Brian E Carpenter'
> >>>> Subject: RE: Agenda
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi, Fred,
> >>>>
> >>>> Could you add Brian Carpenter as co-author and presenter for the
> >>> following agenda
> >>>> item? Due to a known bug of auto-submission tool, Brian's name does
> >>> not recognized.
> >>>>
> >>>> An Incremental Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) for IPv6 Transition
> >>>> Sheng Jiang, Dayong Guo, Brian Carpenter
> >>>>
> >>>> Many thanks and 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 19, 2009 7:55 AM
> >>>>> To: IPv6 Operations
> >>>>> Subject: Agenda
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So I am finally posting the agenda for our meetings next week.
> >>>>> I'll blame the delay on the late posting of drafts. Or
> >>>>> something like that :-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/agenda/v6ops.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I need all of the presentations that people plan to use,
> >>>>> whether in PDF or PPT format, by Sunday night so I can post
> >>>>> them, please. We will run them from my laptop.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Presenters, some of you have told me you only need ten
> >>>>> minutes, and I'll be hoping you do that. I asked for two
> >>>>> 2-hour sessions and got one 2.5 hour and one 1 hour session.
> >>>>> There is at least one discussion that I expect to warrant some
> >>>>> extra time, and what we have is about 20 minutes each.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >