Re: draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Dan,

Sorry if my previous response was rather brief; I was supposed
to be on vacation for a couple of days.

Below..

On 2009-03-07 10:22, Dan Wing wrote:
>  
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Brian Carpenter [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>> Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 11:26 AM
>> To: Dan Wing
>> Cc: Sheng Jiang; IPv6 Operations; Brian Carpenter; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00
>>
>> Dan,
>>
>> We're describing a scenario. Obviously, there are other similar
>> scenarios.
> 
> I had asked my question learn if there is benefit to have the ISP's 
> NAT44 also terminate the IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnel.

As Sheng suggested, the idea is operational convenience by combining
the two functions in one box.  I think we'd like to make IPv6 support
seem like an easy step for an ISP that has decided they have to deploy
NAT anyway. If you end up with all the specifics of a given subscriber
being handled by the same box, there should be operational and
administrative savings.

    Brian

> 
>> That's why v6ops seems like the obvious place for a 
>> first discussion, imho.
> 
> I concur.
> 
> -d
> 
> 
>>    Brian
>>
>> On 3/6/09, Dan Wing <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>  > From: [e-mail]
>>>  > [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Sheng Jiang
>>>  > Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 1:29 AM
>>>  > To: 'Fred Baker'
>>>  > Cc: 'IPv6 Operations'; 'Brian Carpenter'
>>>  > Subject: RE: Agenda issue
>>>  >
>>>  > For sure. We know the draft name rules. When we wrote the
>>>  > draft, we were not sure
>>>  > which WG it should be submitted. It seems relevant to both
>>>  > v6ops and behave.
>>>
>>>  As a BEHAVE co-chair, I haven't seen a request for agenda time
>>>  for draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00, nor any discussion about the
>>>  draft on the BEHAVE mailing list.
>>>
>>>  > We can fix it in 01 version by putting v6ops into the draft name.
>>>
>>>  Renaming a draft starts it at -00.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Anyway, regarding your draft:  it says that the CGN has to 
>> terminate
>>>  the 6-over-4 tunnel.  Couldn't some other device -- not necessarily
>>>  the CGN -- terminate that tunnel?  If so, then I believe your
>>>  proposal is very much just a NAT44 ("CGN") and a 6-over-4 tunnel
>>>  from the in-home gateway to some device that terminates the
>>>  tunnel and has IPv6 Internet connectivity.  This tunnel 
>> concentrator
>>>  might belong to the ISP providing IPv4 service, but it 
>> might also be
>>>  offered by someone else on the Internet (as a separate service), in
>>>  which case the 6-over-4 tunnel might actually go *across* the
>>>  service provider's NAT44 ("CGN").
>>>
>>>  -d
>>>
>>>
>>>  > Best regards,
>>>  >
>>>  > Sheng
>>>  >
>>>  > >-----Original Message-----
>>>  > >From: Fred Baker [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>  > >Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 4:55 PM
>>>  > >To: Sheng Jiang
>>>  > >Cc: 'IPv6 Operations'; 'Brian Carpenter'
>>>  > >Subject: Re: Agenda issue
>>>  > >
>>>  > >OK. I truly wish you had put the working group moniker in the
>>>  > >draft name (individual submission to a named working group),
>>>  > >as it is hard to keep track of work in a working group with
>>>  > >individual submission names.
>>>  > >
>>>  > >On Mar 4, 2009, at 7:00 PM, Sheng Jiang wrote:
>>>  > >
>>>  > >> Hi, Fred,
>>>  > >>
>>>  > >> We have submitted a new draft,
>>>  > >draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00. I think
>>>  > >> we are already on the vows agenda. Are we? If no yet, please
>>>  > >count us
>>>  > >> in.
>>>  > >> Thanks.
>>>  > >>
>>>  > >> Best regards,
>>>  > >>
>>>  > >> Sheng
>>>  > >>
>>>  > >>> -----Original Message-----
>>>  > >>> From: [e-mail]
>>>  > >>> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Fred Baker
>>>  > >>> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 10:16 AM
>>>  > >>> To: IPv6 Operations
>>>  > >>> Subject: Agenda issue
>>>  > >>>
>>>  > >>> I have gotten a number of folks asking for time on the
>>>  > >agenda, but I
>>>  > >>> have a problem:
>>>  > >>>
>>>  > >>>
>>>  > >>> -rw-rw-r--  1 fred  fred   19268 Sep 10 05:33 
>> draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-
>>>  > >>> guard-01.txt
>>>  > >>> -rw-rw-r--  1 fred  fred   61870 Sep 29 08:52 
>> draft-miyata-v6ops-
>>>  > >>> snatpt-02.txt
>>>  > >>> -rw-rw-r--  1 fred  fred   48468 Oct  1 10:58 
>> draft-endo-v6ops-
>>>  > >>> dnsproxy-01.txt
>>>  > >>> -rw-rw-r--  1 fred  fred   43841 Oct 15 10:48 
>> draft-ietf-v6ops-
>>>  > >>> tunnel-
>>>  > >>> security-concerns-
>>>  > >>> 01.txt
>>>  > >>> -rw-rw-r--  1 fred  fred   18562 Oct 15 10:48
>>>  > draft-krishnan-v6ops-
>>>  > >>> teredo-update-04.txt
>>>  > >>> -rw-rw-r--  1 fred  fred   53090 Oct 30 10:22
>>>  > >draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-
>>>  > >>> router-03.txt
>>>  > >>> -rw-rw-r--  1 fred  fred   36662 Nov  3 10:15
>>>  > >draft-bajko-v6ops-port-
>>>  > >>> restricted-ipaddr-a
>>>  > >>> ssign-02.txt
>>>  > >>> -rw-rw-r--  1 fred  fred   48973 Nov  3 11:06
>>>  > draft-luo-v6ops-6man-
>>>  > >>> shim6-lbam-00.txt
>>>  > >>> -rw-rw-r--  1 fred  fred   30429 Nov  3 14:26 
>> draft-chown-v6ops-
>>>  > >>> rogue-
>>>  > >>> ra-02.txt
>>>  > >>> -rw-rw-r--  1 fred  fred  134587 Nov  3 16:14
>>>  > >>> draft-thaler-v6ops- teredo-extensions-02.tx t
>>>  > >>> -rw-rw-r--  1 fred  fred   16462 Feb 17 14:52
>>>  > draft-rgaglian-v6ops-
>>>  > >>> v6inixp-01.txt
>>>  > >>> -rw-rw-r--  1 fred  fred    9716 Feb 18 08:01
>>>  > draft-denis-v6ops-nat-
>>>  > >>> addrsel-00.txt
>>>  > >>> -rw-rw-r--  1 fred  fred   41369 Feb 23 22:05 
>> draft-bnss-v6ops-
>>>  > >>> upnp-00.txt
>>>  > >>> -rw-rw-r--  1 fred  fred   19211 Mar  4 14:11
>>>  > >draft-vyncke-vdv-v6ops-
>>>  > >>> conf-stats-00.txt
>>>  > >>>
>>>  > >>>
>>>  > >>> I see four new drafts post-Minneapolis. The Rogue RA 
>> and Teredo
>>>  > >>> drafts, whose last call completed several months ago and
>>>  > >the write-up
>>>  > >>> is awaiting new drafts, don't have new drafts.
>>>  > >>>
>>>  > >>> Hello? Anyone out there? I need new drafts (cut-off date
>>>  > is Friday)
>>>  > >>> for anything folks expect to discuss in the WG meeting...
>>>  > >>>
>>>  > >>
>>>  > >
>>>  >
>>>  >
>>>
>>>
> 
>