RE: draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00

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

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