[Softwires] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-13.txt

"Yu Fu" <fuyu@cnnic.cn> Mon, 07 August 2017 09:06 UTC

Return-Path: <fuyu@cnnic.cn>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEF5213218F for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 02:06:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gPXPfAL8S2xR for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 02:06:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp13.cnnic.cn [218.241.118.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6F05131C96 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 02:06:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LIUXD (unknown [218.241.103.1]) by ocmail02.zx.nicx.cn (Coremail) with SMTP id AQAAf0DZ4FSKLYhZweVsKw--.19270S3; Mon, 07 Aug 2017 17:06:19 +0800 (CST)
From: Yu Fu <fuyu@cnnic.cn>
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Cc: softwires@ietf.org, 'ianfarrer' <ianfarrer@gmx.com>, 'Yong Cui' <cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn>
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 17:06:15 +0800
Message-ID: <008b01d30f5c$6d25d480$47717d80$@cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AdMPUu9GdR8ThDu4QIepkm0H3b19CgAAjyNw
Content-Language: zh-cn
X-CM-TRANSID: AQAAf0DZ4FSKLYhZweVsKw--.19270S3
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvJXoWxGFy8KrWDJF1DKry3JF48tFb_yoW5tF4kpa yav3s8GwnrJ3W8JaykWr409w1vv395ArWfAFnxKr1jv345G3Wvyr1F9rZ8ArZrXrZ5JF42 vr4Y9w15WFs5XrJanT9S1TB71UUUUUUqnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUUkFb7Iv0xC_Cr1lb4IE77IF4wAFF20E14v26r1j6r4UM7CY07I2 0VC2zVCF04k26cxKx2IYs7xG6rWj6s0DM7CIcVAFz4kK6r1j6r18M28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rw A2F7IY1VAKz4vEj48ve4kI8wA2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Xr0_Ar1l84ACjcxK6xII jxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Cr0_Gr1UM28EF7xvwVC2z280aVAFwI0_GcCE3s1l84ACjcxK6I 8E87Iv6xkF7I0E14v26rxl6s0DM2AIxVAIcxkEcVAq07x20xvEncxIr21l5I8CrVACY4xI 64kE6c02F40Ex7xfMcIj6xIIjxv20xvE14v26r1j6r18McIj6I8E87Iv67AKxVWUJVW8Jw Am72CE4IkC6x0Yz7v_Jr0_Gr1lF7xvr2IYc2Ij64vIr41lc2xSY4AK67AK6r4fMxAIw28I cxkI7VAKI48JMxC20s026xCaFVCjc4AY6r1j6r4UMI8I3I0E5I8CrVAFwI0_Jr0_Jr4lx2 IqxVCjr7xvwVAFwI0_JrI_JrWlx4CE17CEb7AF67AKxVWUAVWUtwCIc40Y0x0EwIxGrwCI 42IY6xIIjxv20xvE14v26r1j6r1xMIIF0xvE2Ix0cI8IcVCY1x0267AKxVWUJVW8JwCI42 IY6xAIw20EY4v20xvaj40_WFyUJVCq3wCI42IY6I8E87Iv67AKxVWUJVW8JwCI42IY6I8E 87Iv6xkF7I0E14v26r1j6r4UYxBIdaVFxhVjvjDU0xZFpf9x07jwHUDUUUUU=
X-CM-SenderInfo: pix13q5fqqxugofq/
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/aZDBQ77dKZmuRBoLNq-0kMnTzCE>
Subject: [Softwires] FW: I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-13.txt
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/softwires/>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 09:06:34 -0000

Hi, Med

A new version has been updated based on your comments as below:
>Further, I invite the authors to double check
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6158#section-3.4.
>Also, you may follow the template defined in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-radext-datatypes-08.

The main changes are as below:
1.We have double checked with the section3.4 of RFC 6158. 
In the scenario of our draft and as described in the RFC 8026, a service
provider's network may have more than one S46 mechanism. 
For example, a ISP's network is configured with MAP and Lightweight 4over6. 
So the radius attribute format defined in section 4.1 is not a fixed data
format based on the scenario as described above.


2.We have changed the format of IPv6 prefix in 4.3.3 to include the reserved
field according to the section 3.10 of RFC8044.

3. We have changed the format of 4.3.4 and 4.3.5 using the sub option/TLV
scheme from RFC6929 and RFC8044 to break out
IPv4 address, IPv6 prefix and other PSID parameters while maintaining the
grouped relationship. And updated the figure of 4.2 accordingly.


Thanks for your comments

BR

Yu
-----Original Message-----
From: softwires-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of internet-drafts@ietf.org
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2017 3:58 PM
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org
Cc: softwires@ietf.org
Subject: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-13.txt


A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Softwires WG of the IETF.

        Title           : RADIUS Attribute for Softwire Address plus Port
based Mechanisms
        Authors         : Sheng Jiang
                          Yu Fu
                          Bing Liu
                          Peter Deacon
                          Chongfeng Xie
                          Tianxiang Li
	Filename        : draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-13.txt
	Pages           : 25
	Date            : 2017-08-07

Abstract:
   IPv4-over-IPv6 transition mechanisms provide both IPv4 and IPv6
   connectivity services simultaneously during the IPv4/IPv6 co-existing
   period.  The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)
   options have been defined to configure Customer Edge (CE) in MAP-E,
   MAP-T, and Lightweight 4over6.  However, in many networks, the
   configuration information may be stored in an Authentication
   Authorization and Accounting (AAA) server, while user configuration
   information is mainly provided by the Broadband Network Gateway (BNG)
   through the DHCPv6 protocol.  This document defines two new Remote
   Authentication Dial In User Service (RADIUS) attributes that carry CE
   configuration information from an AAA server to BNG.


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-13
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-13

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-13


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
Softwires@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires