RE: Proposed agenda for IPv6 Operations - IETF 77

["Templin, Fred L" <[e-mail]>]

Remi,

>From what I could tell, even for the NAT44 case you are
describing there is still a need for host modifications.
Also a need for DHCP server modifications, and a new
type of router in provider networks. That makes SAM a
new transition technology and a new protocol.

Fred
[e-mail]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rémi Després [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 11:03 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: Fred Baker; IPv6 Operations; Ron Bonica; Kurt Erik Lindqvist
> Subject: Re: Proposed agenda for IPv6 Operations - IETF 77
> 
> Fred,
> 
> On February 19, I wrote on to Fred, with copy to the v6ops list:
> <<<
> Draft-despres-softwire-sam-00, which I will post in a few days, contains an updated description of
> SAM, the generic Stateless Address Mapping mechanism which applies to a variety of scenarios.
> 
> Among those, one permits ISPs to deliver native IPv6 connectivity across legacy CPEs that only
> support NAT44 with port forwarding.
> This solution is like 6rd in that:
> - ISPs don't need to change their IPv4 infrastructures
> - They only need to operate gateways between these and their IPv6 accesses
> - These gateways are stateless
> It is unlike 6rd in that:
> - Legacy CPEs don't need to be upgraded
> - To exploit of their IPv6 addresses, hosts have to be upgraded to support SAM.
> 
> Operation considerations of this scenario are relevant to v6ops.
> A time slot for a presentation will be appreciated.
> >>>
> 
> Although the agenda of v6ops doesn't specify it, what I will present on friday is very far from a
> general SAM presentation like the one I asked to have in Softwire, but couldn't be scheduled due to
> the lack of enough time allocated to Softwire.
> 
> As initially planned, my presentation will be limited to the "Native IPv6 across NAT44s" scenario.
> 
> Regards,
> RD
> 
> 
> 
> Le 21 mars 2010 à 07:02, Templin, Fred L a écrit :
> 
> > Fred,
> >
> > As far as I can tell, the SAM proposal is a new transitional
> > technology and protocol also. RANGER and SAM are addressing
> > very similar problem spaces, and I think their eligibility
> > for inclusion in the v6ops agenda should be considered on
> > equal terms.
> >
> > Thanks - Fred
> > [e-mail]
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Fred Baker [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 10:28 PM
> >> To: Templin, Fred L
> >> Cc: IPv6 Operations; Ron Bonica; Kurt Erik Lindqvist
> >> Subject: Re: Proposed agenda for IPv6 Operations - IETF 77
> >>
> >> I have a question on these.
> >>
> >> Per the abstract of VET, "VET can also be considered as version 2 of the Intra-Site Automatic
> Tunnel
> >> Addressing Protocol (i.e., "ISATAPv2")." I tend to agree; with routing, next hop determination,
> and a
> >> "Subnetwork Encapsulation and Adaptation Layer (SEAL)", I don't think this is an operational
> >> description. I think this belongs discussed in rrg, rtgarea/rtgwg, or *maybe* int-area.
> >>
> >> How about you and I discuss this Monday and you convince me that this is within the charter of
> IPv6
> >> Operations. I think it is that which was explicitly placed outside the charter - transitional
> >> technologies and protocol development.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mar 20, 2010, at 2:31 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote:
> >>
> >>> Fred,
> >>>
> >>> The new agenda posted on the webpages does not seem to match the one
> >>> you posted to the list:
> >>>
> >>>  http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/10mar/agenda/v6ops.html
> >>>
> >>> Seeing that there are new additions, I would like to propose to add the
> >>> RANGER, VET and SEAL trilogy - preferably as the final session on
> >>> Friday, as I have two other conflicts for the earlier portion of that session.
> >>> The talk would require 15min, and would cover all three documents
> >>> together (i.e., not as three separate talks). The documents are here:
> >>>
> >>>  http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc5720.txt
> >>>  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-intarea-vet
> >>>  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-intarea-seal
> >>>
> >>> Thanks - Fred
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>>
> >>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Fred Baker
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 2:06 PM
> >>> To: IPv6 Operations
> >>> Subject: Proposed agenda for IPv6 Operations - IETF 77
> >>>
> >>> Comments please... Basically I am putting three security issues and two 3GPP-relevant drafts on
> >> Monday morning and the remainder on Friday morning. Each discussion gets about half an hour. If
> time
> >> permits in the meeting, I'll pull agenda items forward from Friday to Monday. I have two drafts on
> >> here that were not marked for v6ops but the authors asked me to include; next time I'd appreciate
> it
> >> if folks used the draft-*-v6ops-* naming convention; it makes my job easier. If I have missed
> >> anything, let me know.
> >>> IPv6 Operations - IETF 77
> >>>
> >>> Monday 22 March, 9:00 AM
> >>>
> >>> Agenda bashing
> >>>
> >>> Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in Customer Premises Equipment for Providing Residential
> >> IPv6 Internet Service
> >>> 18-Feb-10, <draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-09.txt>
> >>> Advanced Security for IPv6 CPE
> >>> 8-Mar-10, <draft-vyncke-advanced-ipv6-security-01.txt>
> >>> Routing Loops using ISATAP and 6to4: Problem Statement and Proposed Solutions
> >>> 1-Feb-10, <draft-nakibly-v6ops-tunnel-loops-01.txt>
> >>>
> >>> IPv6 in 3GPP Evolved Packet System
> >>> 24-Feb-10, <draft-korhonen-v6ops-3gpp-eps-01.txt>
> >>> Mobile Networks Considerations for IPv6 Deployment
> >>> 8-Mar-10, <draft-koodli-ipv6-in-mobile-networks-01.txt>
> >>> Friday 26 March, 9:00 AM
> >>>
> >>> Emerging Service Provider Scenarios for IPv6 Deployment
> >>> 23-Feb-10, <draft-carpenter-v6ops-isp-scenarios-01.txt>
> >>> Unicast Transmission of IPv6 Multicast Messages on Link-layer
> >>> 15-Feb-10, <draft-gundavelli-v6ops-l2-unicast-00.txt>
> >>> Neighbor Cache Protection in Neighbor Discovery Protocol
> >>> 2-Mar-10, <draft-jiang-v6ops-nc-protection-01.txt>
> >>> DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation as IPv6 Migration Tool in Cellular Networks
> >>> 16-Feb-10, <draft-sarikaya-v6ops-prefix-delegation-00.txt>
> >>> Advanced Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers
> >>> 8-Mar-10, <draft-wbeebee-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-bis-02.txt>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF
> >>>
> >>
> >> http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF
> >
> >
>