IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Softwires] draft-penno-softwire-sdnat vs. draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Thu, 15 March 2012 13:55 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
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 EE58D21F85E0 for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 06:55:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.169
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.169 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.079, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GBgY3nmqlCSx for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 06:55:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECE2F21F85D9 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 06:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.4]) by omfedm09.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 6423D2DC791; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:55:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: from puexch31.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.29]) by omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 4072123807C; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:55:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.233.200.25]) by puexch31.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.29]) with mapi; Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:55:40 +0100
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: "Lee, Yiu" <Yiu_Lee@Cable.Comcast.com>, Alain Durand <adurand@juniper.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 14:55:38 +0100
Thread-Topic: [Softwires] draft-penno-softwire-sdnat vs. draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite
Thread-Index: AQHNAq4jjpk3cZgFiE2DD16c/OQrCJZrYBdA
Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E285575FC@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
References: <C6D552FF-A858-441B-A336-54BF976042C4@juniper.net> <CB87608A.1DDFE%yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com>
In-Reply-To: <CB87608A.1DDFE%yiu_lee@cable.comcast.com>
Accept-Language: fr-FR
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: fr-FR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2012.3.13.105415
Cc: Softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>, draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite <draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite@tools.ietf.org>, "draft-penno-softwire-sdnat@tools.ietf.org" <draft-penno-softwire-sdnat@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] draft-penno-softwire-sdnat vs. draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 13:55:43 -0000

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Lee, Yiu [mailto:Yiu_Lee@Cable.Comcast.com] 
> Envoyé : jeudi 15 mars 2012 14:19
> À : Alain Durand; BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/NAD/TIP
> Cc : Softwires WG; draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite; 
> draft-penno-softwire-sdnat@tools.ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [Softwires] draft-penno-softwire-sdnat vs. 
> draft-cui-softwire-b4-translated-ds-lite

> >
> >IMHO, not specifying the technology to get pot range and
> >living this to implementation is a serious shortcoming.
> >We need to standardize one method.
> 
> We can easily define a method in the B4 translated DS-lite 
> draft. We have
> few on the table (i.e. dhcpv4 over v6 transport, dhcpv6, 
> radius, pcp). We
> can ask the WG to decide which one should be in the base 
> spec. This is how
> RFC5959 was written. Alternatively, we can do what RFC6333 
> does. RFC6333
> doesn't have any provision method defined except referring to RFC6334.

Med: I fully agree.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email