RE: [ipv6-dir] FW: ITU-T Q.9/13 IPv6 concerns

Can't we even get a Christmas Break :)

I'm not on the IPv6 directorate, but I'll try to make a quick summary of
RSVP/NSIS & IPv6 today.

John 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext Scott W Brim [mailto:sbrim@cisco.com] 
>Sent: 02 January, 2006 21:07
>To: Kurt Erik Lindqvist
>Cc: Margaret Wasserman; ipv6-dir@ietf.org; Loughney John 
>(Nokia-NRC/Helsinki); Andersson Loa
>Subject: Re: [ipv6-dir] FW: ITU-T Q.9/13 IPv6 concerns
>
>Hi.  The best possible time to get this liaison in would be 
>January 4th.  How is it coming?
>
>On 12/21/2005 04:52 AM, Kurt Erik Lindqvist allegedly wrote:
>> 
>> On 8 nov 2005, at 18.59, Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>> 
>>>
>>> Is this something that the IPv6 directorate could prepare a 
> response to?
>>> Any volunteers to take the lead on getting this together?
>>>
>>> Margaret
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Scott W Brim [mailto:sbrim@cisco.com]
>>> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 1:17 PM
>>> To: 'Margaret Wasserman'
>>> Subject: ITU-T Q.9/13 IPv6 concerns
>>>
>>> Hi Margaret.  Please either (1) tell me which WGs or ADs to direct 
>>> this to, or (2) compile a list of RFCs/drafts yourself.  
>I'm grateful.
>>> After we have a list I'll draft up a liaison for you.
>>>
>>> These are some specific things that Q.9/13 is concerned 
>about.  What 
>>> the IETF should do is to send them a list of the relevant 
>drafts and 
>>> RFCs, showing them how these issues are being addressed.
>>>
>>> I would do this myself but I'm not an IPv6 expert and I know I'll 
>>> miss something.  All we need is a list.
>>>
>>> - QoS signaling.  They want to be sure that they can efficiently use
>>>   both the the transport signaling protocols (such as RSVP and NSIS)
>>>   and the application signaling protocols (such as SIP) in an IPv6
>>>   environment.  Relevant RFCs/drafts are those about how those
>>>   protocols work over IPv6.
>>>
>>> - QoS signaling interworking, IPv4<->IPv6.
>>>
>>> - General IPv4-IPv6.  They are wondering under what conditions
>>>   application level gateways will be required.
>>>
>>> - Also list the structure of the flow label.  They are very 
>interested
>>>   in what it can be used for.
>>>
>>> - Multihoming with IPv6.  Nothing surprising here -- just list the
>>>   latest cool stuff for multihoming (both site and host).  They like
>>>   SCTP.
>>>
>>> - Mobility.
>>>
>>> - MPLS and IPv6.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Ok attached is what I have written so far. Apologies for the Word 
>> format. I think John has been volunteered (and agreed to) to write  
>> the text on QoS and signalling. I think he might want to 
>read what I  
>> wrote on the flow-label use as well. Loa has said he could write  
>> something on the MPLS bullet, but I have not yet got any text from  
>> him. Perhaps someone else in here can contribute? As for the 
>ALG use,  
>> I didn't write much but my personal opinions. Not sure of 
>the rest of  
>> the ipv6-dir want to add more. Last, if someone on ipv6-dir could  
>> write something on mobility that would be great. It occurred to me  
>> that we have a mobility directorate and I am sure they can 
>write that  better than me anyway :-).
>> 
>> I'd be happy to write more if needed. As for the format and 
>text etc,  
>> I am sure Scott can make that look as it should.
>> 
>> Last question, if this is a lisaon statement, I guess we 
>want to send 
>> it pass the IAB as well.
>> 
>> - kurtis -
>

_______________________________________________
ipv6-dir mailing list
ipv6-dir@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-dir