IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6ops-incremental-cgn

Mohacsi Janos <mohacsi@niif.hu> Wed, 20 May 2009 14:29 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 703B13A6C12 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 May 2009 07:29:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.548
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.548 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.051, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 ywh7K5qCVtk3 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 May 2009 07:29:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 937353A6C3C for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 20 May 2009 07:29:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1M6mk5-0003Ex-E7 for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 20 May 2009 14:26:01 +0000
Received: from [2001:738:0:411::241] (helo=mail.ki.iif.hu) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <mohacsi@niif.hu>) id 1M6mjr-0003DA-8T for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 20 May 2009 14:25:54 +0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail.ki.iif.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9662185139; Wed, 20 May 2009 16:25:44 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mignon.ki.iif.hu
Received: from mail.ki.iif.hu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mignon.ki.iif.hu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id JT4UXSQWr2VZ; Wed, 20 May 2009 16:25:39 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail.ki.iif.hu (Postfix, from userid 9002) id 9FD1085126; Wed, 20 May 2009 16:25:39 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.ki.iif.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AFFC850F3; Wed, 20 May 2009 16:25:39 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 16:25:39 +0200
From: Mohacsi Janos <mohacsi@niif.hu>
X-X-Sender: mohacsi@mignon.ki.iif.hu
To: JiangSheng 66104 <shengjiang@huawei.com>
cc: Seiichi Kawamura <kawamucho@mesh.ad.jp>, Gert Doering <gert@space.net>, "Fleischman, Eric" <eric.fleischman@boeing.com>, "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, Re'mi Despre's <remi.despres@free.fr>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, v6ops@ops.ietf.org, guoseu@huawei.com, "Russert, Steven W" <steven.w.russert@boeing.com>
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6ops-incremental-cgn
In-Reply-To: <f9e2d08a377.377f9e2d08a@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0905201623420.18643@mignon.ki.iif.hu>
References: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A105F0719F@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> <000001c9d502$9843c980$5b0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A105F0726E@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A105F075C2@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> <4A127FA0.6050603@free.fr> <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A105F43989@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> <20090519192430.GK2776@Space.Net> <474EEBD229DF754FB83D256004D021080BC9A0D9@XCH-NW-6V1.nw.nos.boeing.com> <20090520062916.GN2776@Space.Net> <4A13B880.3050407@mesh.ad.jp> <f9e2d08a377.377f9e2d08a@huawei.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>

Janos Mohacsi
Network Engineer, Research Associate, Head of Network Planning and Projects
NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY
Key 70EF9882: DEC2 C685 1ED4 C95A 145F  4300 6F64 7B00 70EF 9882

On Wed, 20 May 2009, JiangSheng 66104 wrote:

>> A document such as this is very helpful and I thank the authors.
>> One concern I have about this kind of model is the widespread
>> ICMP filtering in IPv4 networks. I see many ISPs that filter ICMPv6
>> just as they do with IPv4 and has been causing problmes. This
>> is especially important in a tunnel based solution such as this.
>
> Hi, Seiichi, thanks for your reply. I understand your concern. Yes, ICMP 
> fliter is a problem. We will take this in count later.

They should have a look at this draft:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4890

Best Regards,
 	Janos Mohacsi

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email