Re: [16NG] Node Req: Issue 6: Support for RFC 5121: IP version 6 over WiMAX
"Daniel Park" <soohongp@gmail.com> Mon, 17 November 2008 20:03 UTC
Return-Path: <16ng-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: 16ng-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-16ng-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 489DB3A6A63; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:03:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: 16ng@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 16ng@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7210A3A6A63 for <16ng@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:03:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8u5Cg9sjCucq for <16ng@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:03:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (fg-out-1718.google.com [72.14.220.159]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B94FA3A6A7E for <16ng@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:03:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id d23so2127340fga.41 for <16ng@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:03:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=LB9aACyIg46iym/ClPdyM/msDa5eKU+ZkaDPrCMr9mY=; b=sjwx8afJWuT6UK+iiE/303Hu/5Nt6UAQ9jyjA9Qxf0b5mGnNLOHfEgub7MvcPYmfEL dnJlK+7kQK7YsqgTxk/gQMKvSKWeeM9XfTG1CDHPBG+rAUTlnOFqy9mcPwjCCVo6rksB jWnsf1QlXBcs5lhDwLh0ffOkcwTr0NkL57Jvw=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:references; b=wm8wUBNwbDrumx573qAXaJhWa4RsYJYyYGdNnb6VnHsjqwzABoCvKJx7MkZe1exV3c RNA99EgYBm5idDBnAkpVwQxLML46S+SV+uKab4r2nHup9EsC0C+fgnIzePJIv3dAJCSM +0Ghhz8TTv1rn2Xcs4MOG8mfJUwDIZrCnzksQ=
Received: by 10.181.20.6 with SMTP id x6mr1095286bki.167.1226952193006; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:03:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.181.47.2 with HTTP; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:03:11 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <f7c7d76e0811171203q77763329m21c79469d56f5582@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 05:03:11 +0900
From: Daniel Park <soohongp@gmail.com>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4920E121.5090102@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4BACF58443A3A04688976073775ABB2961B535@daebe102.NOE.Nokia.com> <f7c7d76e0811140119k7ca6a799oeefe0d8dc8111167@mail.gmail.com> <4920E121.5090102@gmail.com>
Cc: john.loughney@nokia.com, ipv6@ietf.org, "16ng@ietf.org" <16ng@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [16NG] Node Req: Issue 6: Support for RFC 5121: IP version 6 over WiMAX
X-BeenThere: 16ng@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: 16ng working group discussion list <16ng.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng>, <mailto:16ng-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/16ng>
List-Post: <mailto:16ng@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:16ng-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng>, <mailto:16ng-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0067394517=="
Sender: 16ng-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: 16ng-bounces@ietf.org
Brian (ccing 16ng list) On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Brian E Carpenter < brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> wrote: > Daniel, > > On 2008-11-14 22:19, Daniel Park wrote: > > John, > > > > I would make a minor change according to the valuable comments from the > > WiMAX expert: > > > > There are two ways to transfer IPv6 over WiMAX: > > - IPv6 over WiMAX using IPCS: RFC5121 > > - IPv6 over Ethernet carried over WiMAX: AD Evaluation (ID Status) > > Where does your suggested preference for the IPv6 CS come from? > Does 16ng have a consensus on this preference? > > Since I can't imagine anyone *not* implementing the Ethernet CS, > doesn't this make extra work for all implementors, compared > with preferring the Ethernet CS for both IP versions? We had long discussion on that before..:-) Yes, IPv6CS (RFC5121) comes from 16ng WG. And EthernetCS is too. Prebably, the consensus you mentioned above means which CS is a mandatory or optional for IPv6 implementation or both. Well, 16ng WG just leaves them to the business choice in WiMAX networks since that is beyond scope of 16ng. As of today, obviously mobile biz wants to implement IPv6CS only, and wired biz (looks like DSL) wants to implemt EthernetCS. But, no one knows what happens tomorrow in WiMAX networks. Daniel
_______________________________________________ 16NG mailing list 16NG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/16ng
- [16NG] Fwd: Node Req: Issue 6: Support for RFC 51… Daniel Park
- Re: [16NG] Fwd: Node Req: Issue 6: Support for RF… Riegel, Maximilian (NSN - DE/Munich)
- Re: [16NG] Fwd: Node Req: Issue 6: Support for RF… Daniel Park
- Re: [16NG] Node Req: Issue 6: Support for RFC 512… Daniel Park
- Re: [16NG] Node Req: Issue 6: Support for RFC 512… Daniel Park
- Re: [16NG] Node Req: Issue 6: Support for RFC 512… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [16NG] Node Req: Issue 6: Support for RFC 512… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [16NG] Node Req: Issue 6: Support for RFC 512… Thomas Narten
- Re: [16NG] Node Req: Issue 6: Support for RFC 512… Brian E Carpenter