RE: draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00

["Dan Wing" <[e-mail]>]

 

> -----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.

> 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...
> >  > >>>
> >  > >>
> >  > >
> >  >
> >  >
> >
> >