Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat
Joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Mon, 20 February 2012 20:32 UTC
Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0881D21F8546 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 12:32:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pI93QGLM-R+p for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 12:32:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73E6821F8526 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Feb 2012 12:32:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Joels-MacBook-Pro.local (89.sub-166-250-32.myvzw.com [166.250.32.89]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q1KKWIt7079623 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 20 Feb 2012 20:32:19 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Message-ID: <4F42ADCC.9070806@bogus.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 12:32:12 -0800
From: Joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Vízdal Aleš <ales.vizdal@t-mobile.cz>
References: <201202151455.q1FEt0K02883@ftpeng-update.cisco.com> <CB63056B.151D4%victor.kuarsingh@gmail.com> <1808340F7EC362469DDFFB112B37E2FCC67E419632@SRVHKE02.rdm.cz>
In-Reply-To: <1808340F7EC362469DDFFB112B37E2FCC67E419632@SRVHKE02.rdm.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (nagasaki.bogus.com [147.28.0.81]); Mon, 20 Feb 2012 20:32:21 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 20 Feb 2012 20:32:24 -0000
On 2/20/12 04:07 , Vízdal Aleš wrote: > +1 > > I fully agree with Victor's words as this draft is providing a real solution > to THE IPv4 exhaustion problem. I do support it and would like to see this > work continued. I would probably construe that more narrowly... The draft provides a solution to an aspect of a providers ipv4 exhaustion problem. It appears on the face of it to provide effective cover for the deployment of ipv6 only networks which have limited pools of available ipv4 addresses. > Cheers, > Ales > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: v6ops-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Victor >> Kuarsingh >> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 1:31 AM >> To: fred@cisco.com; v6ops@ietf.org >> Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat@tools.ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat >> >> Fred, >> >> This work in my mind represents important work that should continue. >> Putting a mobile operator hat on, it provides the last bit of functionally >> to make IPv6 with NAT64 a real and workable option for Wireless >> deployments based on known behaviours in commercially available product >> (I.e. Infrequent, but need for IPv4 connections). >> >> Given the content in the draft and testing/results provided thus far, it >> appears to be a viable option with a number of benefits (especially in the >> mobile space related to PCC complacence). >> >> I would support this work in whichever forum (group) it should exist. >> >> Regards, >> >> Victor K >> >> >> >> On 12-02-15 9:55 AM, "fred@cisco.com" <fred@cisco.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> A new draft has been posted, at >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat. Please take a look >>> at it and comment. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> v6ops mailing list >>> v6ops@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> v6ops mailing list >> v6ops@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > v6ops@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops >
- [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat fred
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat Victor Kuarsingh
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat Vízdal Aleš
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat Joel jaeggli
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat MAWATARI Masataka
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat Rémi Després