How to include APBP scenarios in the Coexistence Requirement I-D
Rémi Després <remi.despres@free.fr> Thu, 19 June 2008 14:58 UTC
Return-Path: <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A25A53A6A09 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 07:58:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.29
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.29 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.108, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
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 LIIhl-gu1wOA for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 07:58:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94EF33A68DE for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 07:58:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1K9LOl-000MV0-Dv for v6ops-data@psg.com; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:46:03 +0000
Received: from [212.27.42.30] (helo=smtp4-g19.free.fr) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <remi.despres@free.fr>) id 1K9LOU-000MTj-5p for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:45:57 +0000
Received: from smtp4-g19.free.fr (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp4-g19.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id C16813EA121; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:45:44 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ordinateur-de-remi-despres.local (per92-10-88-166-221-144.fbx.proxad.net [88.166.221.144]) by smtp4-g19.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B9373EA0FC; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:45:44 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <485A7117.4090206@free.fr>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:45:43 +0200
From: Rémi Després <remi.despres@free.fr>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Macintosh/20080421)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Marcelo Bagnulo <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>
CC: v6ops <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>, Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Subject: How to include APBP scenarios in the Coexistence Requirement I-D
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>
Hi Marcello, You may not remember my e-mail of may 22: http://www.ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2008/msg00808.html, It dealt with the relationship between - my draft-despres-v6ops-apbp-00 (APBP) - your draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-pb-statement-req-00 Since the matter of the APBP I-D fits in the scope of your Requirement I-D, I take the opportunity of a reminder to (hopefully) clarify the subject. Your Requirement draft is about "IPv4/IPv6 Coexistence and Transition: Requirements for solutions". Its scope, defined in the introduction, is: "requirements for solutions to IPv4/IPv6 coexistence and eventual transition in a scenario in which dual stack operation is not the norm" It includes, among others, scenarios for: A. "an IPv4 system connecting to an IPv4 system across an IPv6 network" B. "an IPv6 system connecting to an IPv4 system". Now, in the APBP draft: - Section 2 introduces a new scenario for A. - Section 5.2 introduces a new scenario for a variant of B (where the IPv6 system is modified to obtain E2E IPv4 transparency for IPv4/IPv6 encapsulated packets) The purpose of these new scenarios is: - Scalability (scenario A) - E2E transparency (scenario B) To introduce visibility of these scenarios in your draft without too much reorganization, I suggest this possibility: In your I-D, " 2.1.2 Scenarios that do not require translation 2.1.3 Scenarios that require translation " would be replaced by: " 2.1.2 Scenarios that do not require translation between IPv6 and IPv4 2.1.2.1 Scenarios based only on tunnels <current 2.1.2 text> 2.1.2.1 Scenarios combining tunnels and address-port borrowing < A text, not too long, I could volunteer to provide > 2.1.3 Scenarios that require translation between IPv6 and IPv4 <current 2.1.3 text > " The questions are then: - Is it agreed that something needs to be done? (And if not, what objections need to be discussed) - If it is agreed, are there better ways to include APBP scenarios in the Requirement I-D? Regards. Rémi
- How to include APBP scenarios in the Coexistence … Rémi Després
- Re: How to include APBP scenarios in the Coexiste… marcelo bagnulo braun
- Re: How to include APBP scenarios in the Coexiste… Rémi Després
- Re: How to include APBP scenarios in the Coexiste… marcelo bagnulo braun
- Re: How to include APBP scenarios in the Coexiste… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: How to include APBP scenarios in the Coexiste… Rémi Després
- Re: How to include APBP scenarios in the Coexiste… Rémi Després
- Re: How to include APBP scenarios in the Coexiste… Rémi Després
- Re: How to include APBP scenarios in the Coexiste… Alain Durand
- RE: How to include APBP scenarios in the Coexiste… Dan Wing
- Re: How to include APBP scenarios in the Coexiste… Durand, Alain
- Re: How to include APBP scenarios in the Coexiste… Alain Durand
- RE: How to include APBP scenarios in the Coexiste… Dan Wing
- RE: How to include APBP scenarios in the Coexiste… Dan Wing
- Re: How to include APBP scenarios in the Coexiste… David Miles
- Re: How to include APBP scenarios in the Coexiste… EricLKlein
- Re: How to include APBP scenarios in the Coexiste… Rémi Després
- RE: How to include APBP scenarios in the Coexiste… Dan Wing
- Re: How to include APBP scenarios in the Coexiste… Rémi Després