Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-bao-v6ops-rfc6145bis
Xing Li <xing@cernet.edu.cn> Mon, 06 July 2015 10:51 UTC
Return-Path: <xing@cernet.edu.cn>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98FFD1A00BC for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 03:51:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=ham
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 OuG2zJg7M_vn for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 03:51:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cernet.edu.cn (sea.net.edu.cn [202.112.39.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69E1E1A007C for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Jul 2015 03:51:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.235.142.188] (unknown [58.200.235.35]) by centos (Coremail) with SMTP id AQAAf3ArzwaLXZpVp8fcAA--.15083S2; Mon, 06 Jul 2015 18:50:52 +0800 (CST)
Message-ID: <559A5DB6.4090602@cernet.edu.cn>
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 18:51:34 +0800
From: Xing Li <xing@cernet.edu.cn>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <201507041147.t64Bl2oR005661@irp-lnx1.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <201507041147.t64Bl2oR005661@irp-lnx1.cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------080808070001080104090300"
X-CM-TRANSID: AQAAf3ArzwaLXZpVp8fcAA--.15083S2
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvJXoW7CFWrJw1kXr1DAr45Wry8Xwb_yoW8Xw43pa 95Xw45Grn8Jr1rJa1kWw1Iqw1rA34fW3yUtF13Jw1YyFZ8tF109FnYkrsIvrWjqF95JFZr Xr4I9ry5GrnIqrJanT9S1TB71UUUUUUqnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUUqYb7Iv0xC_Zr1lb4IE77IF4wAFF20E14v26r1j6r4UM7CY07I2 0VC2zVCF04k26cxKx2IYs7xG6rWj6s0DM7CIcVAFz4kK6r1j6r18M28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rw A2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Jr0_JF4l84ACjcxK6xIIjxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Jr0_ Gr1l84ACjcxK6I8E87Iv67AKxVWUJVW8JwA2z4x0Y4vEx4A2jsIEc7CjxVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr 1le2I262IYc4CY6c8Ij28IcVAaY2xG8wAqx4xG6I8vx48I62xC7I0kMcIj6I8E87Iv67AK xVWUJVW8JwAm72CE4IkC6x0Yz7v_Jr0_Gr1lF7xvr2IY64vIr41l7480Y4vEI4kI2Ix0rV Aqx4xJMxkIecxEwVAFwVW8twCF04k20xvY0x0EwIxGrwC20s026c02F40E14v26r106r1r MI8I3I0E7480Y4vE14v26r106r1rMI8E67AF67kF1VAFwI0_Jrv_JF1lIxkGc2Ij64vIr4 1lIxAIcVC0I7IYx2IY67AKxVWUJVWUCwCI42IY6xIIjxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1l IxAIcVCF04k26cxKx2IYs7xG6rW3Jr0E3s1lIxAIcVC2z280aVAFwI0_Gr0_Cr1lIxAIcV C2z280aVCY1x0267AKxVW8JVW8JrUvcSsGvfC2KfnxnUUI43ZEXa7IU1uT5PUUUUU==
X-CM-SenderInfo: p0lqwqxfhu0vvwohv3gofq/
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/9pB282QVKXug7j-j1jlIL6WSdp8>
Cc: draft-bao-v6ops-rfc6145bis@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-bao-v6ops-rfc6145bis
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2015 10:51:40 -0000
fred@cisco.com ??: > A new draft has been posted, at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bao-v6ops-rfc6145bis. Please take a look at it and comment. > We have submitted this draft to look for v6ops' comments. The changes compared with RFC6145 are: (1) From the erratum report http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6145 (2) From 6man's document concerning "Deprecating the Generation of IPv6 Atomic Fragments" https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-deprecate-atomfrag-generation/ Ntote that RFC6145 already has this mechanism, but it is just an option. The rfc6145bis makes this mechanism the default and the only one. (3) Refer to RFC6791 for "Stateless Source Address Mapping for ICMPv6 Packets" https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6791/ (4) Include EAM address mapping algoritm which is the current work of v6ops, "Explicit Address Mappings for Stateless IP/ICMP Translation" https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-eam/ There are some discussions concerning this issue, since EAM is an address mapping algorithm (RFC6052's alternative), not a protocol mapping algorithm. We include EAM in RFC6145bis because it is just a static configuration and simple. If additional details, for example hairpinning, needs to be included, I think those details should be in another document. We are looking for the comments. xing > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > v6ops@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > >