RE: draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00

[Sheng Jiang <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Templin,

Yes, the mechanisms described in VET are possible to be used in our proposed
incremental v4/v6 transition CGN. We would mention it when we resubmit our draft
with v6ops in the draft name later. 

Many thanks and best regards,

Sheng

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 12:02 AM
>To: Sheng Jiang; Dan Wing
>Cc: IPv6 Operations; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>Subject: RE: draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00
>
>For the case of IPv6, I think what you are calling "DS HG" is 
>pretty much the same as what is called "Enterprise Border 
>Router (EBR)" and the CGN is pretty much the same as what is 
>called: "Enterprise Border Gateway (EBG)" in VET 
>('draft-templin-autoconf-dhcp').
>You could also check the diagrams in RANGER to see if they 
>satisfy your needs ('draft-templin-ranger').
>
>The CPE people might also want to check VET, which is really a 
>superset of ISATAP.
>
>Fred
>[e-mail]
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sheng Jiang [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 8:04 PM
>> To: 'Dan Wing'
>> Cc: 'IPv6 Operations'; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Subject: RE: draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00
>> 
>> >From: Dan Wing [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> 
>> >> We can fix it in 01 version by putting v6ops into the draft name.
>> >
>> >Renaming a draft starts it at -00.
>> 
>> Thanks, we can rename it with 00 and WG name.
>> 
>> >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").
>> 
>> Yes, your understanding is right. NAT44 and 6-over-4 tunnel can be
>splitted. They
>> are separate technologies.
>> 
>> In our proposal, we suggest to integrate NAT44 and 6-over-4 tunnel
>into a same
>> device box (CGN) so that ISPs can deploy it with a clear IPv6
>migration strategy.
>> Here, we may extend the concept of CGN a little bit. When we talk
>about CGN, we are
>> actually referring to a carrier-grade device, which integrates NAT
>functions and
>> other integrated technologies.
>> 
>> 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...
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> 
>