IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Softwires] dual-stack-lite-06 - Too biased against static port sharing

Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr> Wed, 18 August 2010 19:47 UTC

Return-Path: <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
X-Original-To: softwires@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C70F3A6A92 for <softwires@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Aug 2010 12:47:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.248, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 Tii49uVCRBsi for <softwires@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Aug 2010 12:47:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (givry.fdupont.fr [91.121.26.85]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1885F3A67AC for <softwires@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Aug 2010 12:47:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o7IJm8EZ000868; Wed, 18 Aug 2010 19:48:08 GMT (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr)
Message-Id: <201008181948.o7IJm8EZ000868@givry.fdupont.fr>
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange-ftgroup.com
In-reply-to: Your message of Thu, 12 Aug 2010 10:22:30 +0200. <24280_1281601351_4C63AF47_24280_1087_1_94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F312F6F9EB2D@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 21:48:08 +0200
Sender: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr
Cc: Softwires <softwires@ietf.org>, Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] dual-stack-lite-06 - Too biased against static port sharing
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 19:47:35 -0000

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   We have raised this point during the last call which has been
   issued on version 03 of the draft and suggested to remove this
   section from the draft since it is not normative and also because
   this depends on the taste of each SP and their deployment
   context. A reference to http://tools.ietf.org/html/
   draft-ietf-intarea-shared-addressing-issues-01#page-22
   would be sufficient IMHO. "Dynamic vs. Static" and "Port set
   vs. Individual ports" discussion can be elaborated further in
   draft-intarea-shared-addressing-issues if required.
   
=> IMHO it is the best option (and to make the draft smaller is
a good goal :-).

Thanks

Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status