IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [BEHAVE] [Softwires] [Int-area] next steps for ipv4-ipv6 co-existenceand an interimmeeting

"Dan Wing" <dwing@cisco.com> Sat, 23 August 2008 00:19 UTC

Return-Path: <behave-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: behave-archive@optimus.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-behave-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CB163A6ADE; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:19:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: behave@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: behave@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E29F3A6ADA; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:19:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.676
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.676 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-4.434, BAYES_00=-2.599, FS_BROKEN_MEETING=10.357, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 JzG57JWhyph8; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:19:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-2.cisco.com (sj-iport-2.cisco.com [171.71.176.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EC273A67EB; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:19:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,255,1217808000"; d="scan'208";a="77601002"
Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Aug 2008 00:19:32 +0000
Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (sj-core-3.cisco.com [171.68.223.137]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m7N0JWqR002166; Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:19:32 -0700
Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.194]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m7N0JWDY021936; Sat, 23 Aug 2008 00:19:32 GMT
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
To: "'Templin, Fred L'" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, 'Jari Arkko' <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, 'Internet Area' <int-area@ietf.org>, behave@ietf.org, 'IPv6 Operations' <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>, softwires@ietf.org
References: <48AC1715.2000808@piuha.net> <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A104DEE9E6@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:19:32 -0700
Message-ID: <19a701c904b5$ea757e10$c2f0200a@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
Thread-Index: AckCxZAYpCoRmF0JT2SzLVVN5pcR0gADZEVwAHiJGCA=
In-Reply-To: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A104DEE9E6@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=549; t=1219450772; x=1220314772; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Dan=20Wing=22=20<dwing@cisco.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[Softwires]=20[Int-area]=20next=20steps =20for=20ipv4-ipv6=20co-existenceand=20an=20interimmeeting |Sender:=20; bh=NeZjUuIem3812ye+NKAa/7wexhLbCl6NAHljVCRp/fI=; b=rMM6q2I+hdhQl5n+XKbybkKxOBp+PjcpUe0Lx756Alx19EEKjJdvoPee9F psIhXHMxGNMnN6GI+ZctJmi37NKflEYzrV0uCU8LnaKDbwedjA4+lhF9f1pA DqKTm1FX7P;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; );
Subject: Re: [BEHAVE] [Softwires] [Int-area] next steps for ipv4-ipv6 co-existenceand an interimmeeting
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <behave.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/behave>
List-Post: <mailto:behave@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: behave-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: behave-bounces@ietf.org

> >Did I miss anything?
> 
> I was not able to attend the meeting; were considerations
> for ipv4-ipv6 coexistence in enterprise networks discussed?

I believe most everyone is thinking of the Internet, rather
than enterprise networks.

If there are unique enterprise requirements it would be 
valuable to incorporate them into a requirements document 
(either in draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-pb-statement-req or in the 
document that Jari's email said that Jari and Mark Townsley 
are writing -- I'm not sure which one would be best).

-d

_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
Behave@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email