Re: [v6ops] draft-palet-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas discussion

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>]

Typically, the NAT64 will be the default GW ... but it is true that you may have also installed a more specific route for the NAT64 prefix/suffix (in addition to the default one).

Maybe what it makes sense anyway, is to have also a MUST for the RFC7291 y PCP is implemented by the CE.

Regards,
Jordi
 
 
-----Mensaje original-----
De: <[e-mail]>
Fecha: viernes, 27 de abril de 2018, 13:15
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>, V6 Ops List <[e-mail]>
Asunto: RE: [v6ops] draft-palet-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas discussion

    Re-,
    
    Please see inline. 
    
    Cheers,
    Med
    
    > -----Message d'origine-----
    > De : v6ops [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
    > Envoyé : vendredi 27 avril 2018 13:03
    > À : V6 Ops List
    > Objet : Re: [v6ops] draft-palet-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas discussion
    > 
    > I mean in the scenario when a CE or host behind a NAT64 want to ask the NAT64
    > for specific IPv4 incoming traffic.
    
    [Med] Yes. See for example the experiments we did using an Android Phone: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/slides/slides-85-pcp-6.pdf 
    
     I thought you can do that as well if the
    > NAT64 supports PCP, and if that's the case, the CE/host will need to tell the
    > PCP server (so again, if no PCP server is configured, the CE could assume, by
    > default, that the NAT64 is the PCP server).
    
    [Med] Yeah, but the CE is not aware of the NAT64. This is why it is needed to configure explicitly the PCP server on the CE for 464xlat case: RFC 7291. 
    
    > 
    > Regards,
    > Jordi
    > 
    > 
    > -----Mensaje original-----
    > De: <[e-mail]>
    > Fecha: viernes, 27 de abril de 2018, 12:52
    > Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>, V6 Ops List
    > <[e-mail]>
    > Asunto: RE: [v6ops] draft-palet-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas discussion
    > 
    >     Re-,
    > 
    >     It does not make sense to use the same text for the following reasons:
    > 
    >     * NAT64 deployments do not require explicit configuration of the NAT64
    > instance to use at the CPE/host side, while in DS-Lite the configuration of
    > the AFTR is required.
    >     * Packets from the host embedding the CLAT are native IPv6 packets, so
    > PCP requests will just fly as native IPv6 packets. The situation is different
    > for DS-Lite because IPv4 user traffic is encapsulated over IPv6 to the AFTR.
    > 
    >     Cheers,
    >     Med
    > 
    >     > -----Message d'origine-----
    >     > De : v6ops [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de JORDI PALET
    > MARTINEZ
    >     > Envoyé : vendredi 27 avril 2018 12:26
    >     > À : V6 Ops List
    >     > Objet : Re: [v6ops] draft-palet-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas discussion
    >     >
    >     > Agree, it makes sense.
    >     >
    >     > I don't know if other operators are using also the same approach when
    > using
    >     > NAT64. May be nobody considered, but I think it will make sense to have
    > the
    >     > same text as well?
    >     >
    >     > Regards,
    >     > Jordi
    >     >
    >     >
    >     > -----Mensaje original-----
    >     > De: <[e-mail]>
    >     > Fecha: viernes, 27 de abril de 2018, 11:21
    >     > Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>, V6 Ops List
    >     > <[e-mail]>
    >     > Asunto: RE: [v6ops] draft-palet-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas discussion
    >     >
    >     >     Re-,
    >     >
    >     >     Thank you.
    >     >
    >     >     For DS-Lite, you may mention the following :
    >     >     - when no PCP server is configured, the CPE assumes by default that
    > the
    >     > AFTR is the PCP server.
    >     >     - a plain IPv6 mode is used to send PCP requests to the server.
    >     >
    >     >     This is how PCP is deployed today for DS-lite. It is worth to have
    > it
    >     > documented.
    >     >
    >     >     Cheers,
    >     >     Med
    >     >
    >     >     > -----Message d'origine-----
    >     >     > De : v6ops [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de JORDI
    > PALET
    >     > MARTINEZ
    >     >     > Envoyé : vendredi 27 avril 2018 11:04
    >     >     > À : V6 Ops List
    >     >     > Objet : Re: [v6ops] draft-palet-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas
    > discussion
    >     >     >
    >     >     > Done, thanks!
    >     >     >
    >     >     > So, I removed the SHOULD for PCP, as it is already in RFC7084,
    > but
    >     > added (DS-
    >     >     > LITE and 464XLAT):
    >     >     >
    >     >     > 	The CE Router SHOULD support IGD-PCP IWF [RFC6970] (UPnP
    >     >     >                Internet Gateway Device - Port Control Protocol
    >     >     >                Interworking Function).
    >     >     >
    >     >     > Regards,
    >     >     > Jordi
    >     >     >
    >     >     >
    >     >     > -----Mensaje original-----
    >     >     > De: <[e-mail]>
    >     >     > Fecha: viernes, 27 de abril de 2018, 10:37
    >     >     > Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>, V6 Ops
    > List
    >     >     > <[e-mail]>
    >     >     > Asunto: RE: [v6ops] draft-palet-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas
    > discussion
    >     >     >
    >     >     >     Jordi,
    >     >     >
    >     >     >     That is what I was suggesting.
    >     >     >
    >     >     >     Cheers,
    >     >     >     Med
    >     >     >
    >     >     >     > -----Message d'origine-----
    >     >     >     > De : v6ops [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de
    > JORDI
    >     > PALET
    >     >     > MARTINEZ
    >     >     >     > Envoyé : vendredi 27 avril 2018 10:32
    >     >     >     > À : V6 Ops List
    >     >     >     > Objet : Re: [v6ops] draft-palet-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas
    >     > discussion
    >     >     >     >
    >     >     >     > Responding to myself ... The alternative maybe to not say
    >     > anything
    >     >     > about
    >     >     >     > RFC6887, so the SHOULD in RFC7084 is in effect and add a
    > SHOULD
    >     > for
    >     >     > RFC6970.
    >     >     >     >
    >     >     >     > Regards,
    >     >     >     > Jordi
    >     >     >     >
    >     >     >     >
    >     >     >     > -----Mensaje original-----
    >     >     >     > De: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>
    >     >     >     > Fecha: viernes, 27 de abril de 2018, 10:27
    >     >     >     > Para: V6 Ops List <[e-mail]>
    >     >     >     > Asunto: Re: [v6ops] draft-palet-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas
    >     > discussion
    >     >     >     >
    >     >     >     >     The difference is in RFC7084 is a SHOULD for RFC6887,
    > while
    >     > here
    >     >     > I'm
    >     >     >     > suggesting a MUST when DS-LITE or 464XLAT are implemented.
    >     >     >     >
    >     >     >     >     Asking a MUST for RFC6970, and not having a MUST in
    > RFC6887
    >     > seems
    >     >     > weird
    >     >     >     > ...
    >     >     >     >
    >     >     >     >     Regards,
    >     >     >     >     Jordi
    >     >     >     >
    >     >     >     >
    >     >     >     >     -----Mensaje original-----
    >     >     >     >     De: <[e-mail]>
    >     >     >     >     Fecha: viernes, 27 de abril de 2018, 9:45
    >     >     >     >     Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
    > <[e-mail]>, V6
    >     > Ops
    >     >     > List
    >     >     >     > <[e-mail]>
    >     >     >     >     Asunto: RE: [v6ops] draft-palet-v6ops-transition-
    > ipv4aas
    >     > discussion
    >     >     >     >
    >     >     >     >         Re-,
    >     >     >     >
    >     >     >     >         Please see inline.
    >     >     >     >
    >     >     >     >         Cheers,
    >     >     >     >         Med
    >     >     >     >
    >     >     >     >         > -----Message d'origine-----
    >     >     >     >         > De : v6ops [mailto:[e-mail]] De la
    > part
    >     > de
    >     >     > JORDI
    >     >     >     > PALET MARTINEZ
    >     >     >     >         > Envoyé : vendredi 27 avril 2018 08:27
    >     >     >     >         > À : V6 Ops List
    >     >     >     >         > Objet : Re: [v6ops] draft-palet-v6ops-transition-
    >     > ipv4aas
    >     >     > discussion
    >     >     >     >         >
    >     >     >     >         > Hi Med,
    >     >     >     >         >
    >     >     >     >         > In the document I'm editing right now, I've it
    > already
    >     >     > support for
    >     >     >     > RFC6887
    >     >     >     >         > (464XLAT-2):
    >     >     >     >
    >     >     >     >         [Med] You don't need to add an item for 6887 since
    > this
    >     > is
    >     >     > already
    >     >     >     > covered in 7084:
    >     >     >     >
    >     >     >     >            W-6:  The WAN interface of the CE router SHOULD
    >     > support a
    >     >     > Port
    >     >     >     >                  Control Protocol (PCP) client as specified
    > in
    >     >     > [RFC6887] for
    >     >     >     > use
    >     >     >     >                  by applications on the CE router.  The PCP
    >     > client
    >     >     > SHOULD
    >     >     >     > follow
    >     >     >     >                  the procedure specified in Section 8.1 of
    >     > [RFC6887] to
    >     >     >     > discover
    >     >     >     >                  its PCP server.  This document takes no
    > position
    >     > on
    >     >     > whether
    >     >     >     >                  such functionality is enabled by default
    > or
    >     > mechanisms
    >     >     > by
    >     >     >     > which
    >     >     >     >                  users would configure the functionality.
    >     > Handling PCP
    >     >     >     > requests
    >     >     >     >                  from PCP clients in the LAN side of the CE
    >     > router is
    >     >     > out of
    >     >     >     >                  scope.
    >     >     >     >
    >     >     >     >         My comment is about the IWF which is needed to
    > allow an
    >     > UPnP
    >     >     > Control
    >     >     >     > Point to interact with a PCP server.
    >     >     >     >
    >     >     >     >         >
    >     >     >     >         >    464XLAT requirements:
    >     >     >     >         >
    >     >     >     >         >    464XLAT-1:  The CE Router MUST perform IPv4
    > Network
    >     >     > Address
    >     >     >     >         >                Translation (NAT) on IPv4 traffic
    >     > translated
    >     >     > using
    >     >     >     > the
    >     >     >     >         >                CLAT, unless a dedicated /64
    > prefix has
    >     > been
    >     >     >     > acquired
    >     >     >     >         >                using DHCPv6-PD [RFC3633] (IPv6
    > Prefix
    >     > Options
    >     >     > for
    >     >     >     >         >                DHCPv6).
    >     >     >     >         >
    >     >     >     >         >    464XLAT-2:  The CE Router MUST support PCP
    > [RFC6887]
    >     > (Port
    >     >     >     > Control
    >     >     >     >         >                Protocol), for explicit control
    > over
    >     > NAT64
    >     >     > mappings.
    >     >     >     >
    >     >     >     >         [Med] This one should be removed since it overlaps
    > with
    >     > W-6 in
    >     >     > 7084.
    >     >     >     >
    >     >     >     >         >
    >     >     >     >         >    464XLAT-3:  The CE Router MUST implement
    > [RFC7050]
    >     >     > (Discovery of
    >     >     >     > the
    >     >     >     >         >                IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address
    >     > Synthesis)
    >     >     > in
    >     >     >     > order to
    >     >     >     >         >                discover the PLAT-side translation
    > IPv4
    >     > and
    >     >     > IPv6
    >     >     >     >         >                prefix(es)/suffix(es).  The CE
    > Router
    >     > MUST
    >     >     > follow
    >     >     >     >         >                [RFC7225] (Discovering NAT64 IPv6
    >     > Prefixes
    >     >     > Using the
    >     >     >     >         >                PCP), in order to learn the PLAT-
    > side
    >     >     > translation
    >     >     >     > IPv4
    >     >     >     >         >                and IPv6 prefix(es)/suffix(es)
    > used by
    >     > an
    >     >     > upstream
    >     >     >     > PCP-
    >     >     >     >         >                controlled NAT64 device.
    >     >     >     >         >
    >     >     >     >         >
    >     >     >     >         > But I now realice that it should be added as well
    > to
    >     > the DS-
    >     >     > Lite
    >     >     >     > section, as
    >     >     >     >         > it was not present in RFC7084. This is what I've
    > right
    >     > now:
    >     >     >     >         >
    >     >     >     >         >   DS-Lite requirements:
    >     >     >     >         >
    >     >     >     >         >    DSLITE-1:  The IPv6 CE router MUST support
    >     > configuration
    >     >     > of DS-
    >     >     >     > Lite
    >     >     >     >         >               via the DS-Lite DHCPv6 option
    > [RFC6334]
    >     > (DHCPv6
    >     >     >     > Option for
    >     >     >     >         >               Dual-Stack Lite).  The IPv6 CE
    > router MAY
    >     > use
    >     >     > other
    >     >     >     >         >               mechanisms to configure DS-Lite
    >     > parameters.
    >     >     > Such
    >     >     >     >         >               mechanisms are outside the scope of
    > this
    >     >     > document.
    >     >     >     >         >
    >     >     >     >         >    DSLITE-2:  The IPv6 CE router MUST NOT perform
    > IPv4
    >     >     > Network
    >     >     >     > Address
    >     >     >     >         >               Translation (NAT) on IPv4 traffic
    >     > encapsulated
    >     >     > using
    >     >     >     > DS-
    >     >     >     >         >               Lite.
    >     >     >     >         >
    >     >     >     >         >
    >     >     >     >         > So just to make sure, you mean to add also to
    > both,
    >     > 464LAT
    >     >     > and DS-
    >     >     >     > LITE also a
    >     >     >     >         > MUST for RFC6970 ?
    >     >     >     >
    >     >     >     >         [Med] Yes, I'd like to add an item for the IWF, not
    > the
    >     > PCP
    >     >     > Client
    >     >     >     > functionality.
    >     >     >     >
    >     >     >     >         >
    >     >     >     >         > We have a new section with this text suggested by
    >     > Richard:
    >     >     >     >         >
    >     >     >     >         > 5.  UPnP IGD-PCP IWF Support
    >     >     >     >         >
    >     >     >     >         >    UPnP MAY be enabled on the CE Router for
    > stateless
    >     >     > mechanisms
    >     >     >     > that
    >     >     >     >         >    forward unsolicited inbound packets through to
    > the
    >     > CE.  If
    >     >     > UPnP
    >     >     >     > is
    >     >     >     >         >    enabled, the agent MUST reject any port
    > mapping
    >     > requests
    >     >     > for
    >     >     >     > ports
    >     >     >     >         >    outside of the range(s) allocated to the CE
    > Router.
    >     >     >     >         >
    >     >     >     >         >    UPnP SHOULD be disabled for stateful
    > mechanisms that
    >     > do
    >     >     > not
    >     >     >     > forward
    >     >     >     >         >    unsolicited inbound packets to the CE Router,
    > unless
    >     >     > implemented
    >     >     >     > in
    >     >     >     >         >    conjunction with a method to control the
    > external
    >     > port
    >     >     > mapping,
    >     >     >     > such
    >     >     >     >         >    as IGD-PCP IWF [RFC6970] (UPnP Internet
    > Gateway
    >     > Device -
    >     >     > Port
    >     >     >     > Control
    >     >     >     >         >    Protocol Interworking Function).
    >     >     >     >         >
    >     >     >     >
    >     >     >     >         [Med] this text does not recommend implementing the
    > IWF.
    >     >     >     >
    >     >     >     >         >
    >     >     >     >         > Regards,
    >     >     >     >         > Jordi
    >     >     >     >         >
    >     >     >     >         >
    >     >     >     >         > -----Mensaje original-----
    >     >     >     >         > De: <[e-mail]>
    >     >     >     >         > Fecha: viernes, 27 de abril de 2018, 7:26
    >     >     >     >         > Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
    >     > <[e-mail]>, V6
    >     >     > Ops
    >     >     >     > List
    >     >     >     >         > <[e-mail]>
    >     >     >     >         > Asunto: RE: [v6ops] draft-palet-v6ops-transition-
    >     > ipv4aas
    >     >     > discussion
    >     >     >     >         >
    >     >     >     >         >     Hi Jordi,
    >     >     >     >         >
    >     >     >     >         >     As you are on it, and given the IETF
    > recommendation
    >     > in
    >     >     > RFC6888:
    >     >     >     >         >
    >     >     >     >         >        REQ-9:  A CGN MUST implement a protocol
    > giving
    >     >     > subscribers
    >     >     >     > explicit
    >     >     >     >         >           control over NAT mappings.  That
    > protocol
    >     > SHOULD be
    >     >     > the
    >     >     >     > Port
    >     >     >     >         >           Control Protocol [RFC6887].
    >     >     >     >         >
    >     >     >     >         >     which would apply also to the PLAT, I suggest
    > you
    >     > add an
    >     >     > item
    >     >     >     > in the
    >     >     >     >         > 464lat section to support RFC6970.
    >     >     >     >         >
    >     >     >     >         >     Cheers,
    >     >     >     >         >     Med
    >     >     >     >         >
    >     >     >     >         >     > -----Message d'origine-----
    >     >     >     >         >     > De : v6ops [mailto:[e-mail]]
    > De la
    >     > part
    >     >     > de
    >     >     >     > JORDI PALET
    >     >     >     >         > MARTINEZ
    >     >     >     >         >     > Envoyé : jeudi 26 avril 2018 21:41
    >     >     >     >         >     > À : V6 Ops List
    >     >     >     >         >     > Objet : Re: [v6ops] draft-palet-v6ops-
    > transition-
    >     >     > ipv4aas
    >     >     >     > discussion
    >     >     >     >         >     >
    >     >     >     >         >     > Hi Richard,
    >     >     >     >         >     >
    >     >     >     >         >     > As I've moved sections 3 & 4 to the end of
    > the
    >     > document
    >     >     > as
    >     >     >     > annexes,
    >     >     >     >         > I've
    >     >     >     >         >     > added a new small section for UPnP with
    > your
    >     > text. I
    >     >     > think
    >     >     >     > this also
    >     >     >     >         > helps to
    >     >     >     >         >     > clarify one of the issues raised by Lee.
    >     >     >     >         >     >
    >     >     >     >         >     > I'm working on all this changes with my co-
    >     > authors, and
    >     >     > if we
    >     >     >     > are good
    >     >     >     >         > with
    >     >     >     >         >     > them, we probably will submit the new
    > version in
    >     > a
    >     >     > couple of
    >     >     >     > days or
    >     >     >     >         > so.
    >     >     >     >         >     >
    >     >     >     >         >     > Thanks!
    >     >     >     >         >     >
    >     >     >     >         >     > Regards,
    >     >     >     >         >     > Jordi
    >     >     >     >         >     >
    >     >     >     >         >     >
    >     >     >     >         >     > -----Mensaje original-----
    >     >     >     >         >     > De: v6ops <[e-mail]> en
    > nombre de
    >     > Richard
    >     >     >     > Patterson
    >     >     >     >         >     > <[e-mail]>
    >     >     >     >         >     > Fecha: miércoles, 25 de abril de 2018,
    > 11:16
    >     >     >     >         >     > Para: V6 Ops List <[e-mail]>
    >     >     >     >         >     > Asunto: Re: [v6ops] draft-palet-v6ops-
    > transition-
    >     >     > ipv4aas
    >     >     >     > discussion
    >     >     >     >         >     >
    >     >     >     >         >     >     Section 4 only briefly touches on UPnP,
    > I'd
    >     > like to
    >     >     >     > propose that we
    >     >     >     >         >     >     make a recommendation around its
    > behaviour if
    >     > it is
    >     >     >     > enabled.
    >     >     >     >         >     >
    >     >     >     >         >     >     UPnP MAY be enabled on the IPv6
    > transition
    >     > CE, for
    >     >     >     > stateless
    >     >     >     >         >     >     mechanisms that forward unsolicited
    > inbound
    >     > packets
    >     >     >     > through to the
    >     >     >     >         > CE.
    >     >     >     >         >     >     If UPnP is enabled, the agent MUST
    > reject any
    >     > port
    >     >     >     > mapping requests
    >     >     >     >         >     >     for ports outside of the range(s)
    > allocated
    >     > to the
    >     >     > IPv6
    >     >     >     > transition
    >     >     >     >         > CE.
    >     >     >     >         >     >
    >     >     >     >         >     >     UPnP SHOULD be disabled for stateful
    >     > mechanisms
    >     >     > that do
    >     >     >     > not forward
    >     >     >     >         >     >     unsolicited inbound packets to the CE,
    > unless
    >     >     > implemented
    >     >     >     > in
    >     >     >     >         >     >     conjunction with a method to control
    > the
    >     > external
    >     >     > port
    >     >     >     > mapping,
    >     >     >     >         > such
    >     >     >     >         >     >     as IGD-PCP IWF [RFC6970].
    >     >     >     >         >     >
    >     >     >     >         >     >     -Richard
    >     >     >     >         >     >
    >     >     >     >         >     >
    >     >     >     >         >     >     On 25 April 2018 at 01:38, Fred Baker
    >     >     >     > <[e-mail]>
    >     >     >     >         > wrote:
    >     >     >     >         >     >     >
    >     >     >     >         >     >     >
    >     >     >     >         >     >     >> On Apr 24, 2018, at 12:13 PM, STARK,
    >     > BARBARA H
    >     >     >     > <[e-mail]>
    >     >     >     >         > wrote:
    >     >     >     >         >     >     >>
    >     >     >     >         >     >     >> But that doesn't mean I believe the
    > draft
    >     > has
    >     >     > exactly
    >     >     >     > the right
    >     >     >     >         > set of
    >     >     >     >         >     > features included. My understanding of
    > "adoption"
    >     > is
    >     >     > that it
    >     >     >     > is still
    >     >     >     >         >     > possible post-adoption to discuss whether
    >     > specific
    >     >     > features /
    >     >     >     >         > requirements do
    >     >     >     >         >     > or don't belong. If the precise set of
    > features
    >     > and
    >     >     >     > requirements must
    >     >     >     >         > be
    >     >     >     >         >     > agreed upon prior to adoption, then I would
    > not
    >     > be in
    >     >     > support
    >     >     >     > of
    >     >     >     >         > adoption.
    >     >     >     >         >     > Hopefully we aren't setting the bar that
    > high?
    >     >     >     >         >     >     >
    >     >     >     >         >     >     > I understand "adoption as a working
    > group
    >     > draft"
    >     >     > to
    >     >     >     > mean that the
    >     >     >     >         >     > working group has agreed to work on the
    > draft.
    >     > There
    >     >     > are some
    >     >     >     > working
    >     >     >     >         > groups
    >     >     >     >         >     > that seem to confuse "adoption as a work
    > group
    >     > draft"
    >     >     > with
    >     >     >     > "agreement
    >     >     >     >         > to send
    >     >     >     >         >     > it to the IESG"; I don't, but expect
    > conversation
    >     > in
    >     >     > between
    >     >     >     > those two
    >     >     >     >         >     > events.
    >     >     >     >         >     >     >
    >     >     >     >         >     >     > That said, I'd like to believe that
    > the
    >     > draft is
    >     >     > pretty
    >     >     >     > close,
    >     >     >     >         > and that
    >     >     >     >         >     > changes that need to be made to it will
    > have text
    >     >     > offered by
    >     >     >     > the people
    >     >     >     >         > that
    >     >     >     >         >     > want them. So - keep your cards and letters
    >     > coming...
    >     >     >     >         >     >     >
    >     >     >     >         >     >     >
    >     > _______________________________________________
    >     >     >     >         >     >     > v6ops mailing list
    >     >     >     >         >     >     > [e-mail]
    >     >     >     >         >     >     >
    > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
    >     >     >     >         >     >     >
    >     >     >     >         >     >
    >     >     >     >         >     >
    >     > _______________________________________________
    >     >     >     >         >     >     v6ops mailing list
    >     >     >     >         >     >     [e-mail]
    >     >     >     >         >     >
    > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
    >     >     >     >         >     >
    >     >     >     >         >     >
    >     >     >     >         >     >
    >     >     >     >         >     >
    >     >     >     >         >     >
    > **********************************************
    >     >     >     >         >     > IPv4 is over
    >     >     >     >         >     > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
    >     >     >     >         >     > http://www.consulintel.es
    >     >     >     >         >     > The IPv6 Company
    >     >     >     >         >     >
    >     >     >     >         >     > This electronic message contains
    > information
    >     > which may
    >     >     > be
    >     >     >     > privileged or
    >     >     >     >         >     > confidential. The information is intended
    > to be
    >     > for the
    >     >     >     > exclusive use
    >     >     >     >         > of the
    >     >     >     >         >     > individual(s) named above and further non-
    >     > explicilty
    >     >     >     > authorized
    >     >     >     >         > disclosure,
    >     >     >     >         >     > copying, distribution or use of the
    > contents of
    >     > this
    >     >     >     > information, even
    >     >     >     >         > if
    >     >     >     >         >     > partially, including attached files, is
    > strictly
    >     >     > prohibited
    >     >     >     > and will be
    >     >     >     >         >     > considered a criminal offense. If you are
    > not the
    >     >     > intended
    >     >     >     > recipient be
    >     >     >     >         > aware
    >     >     >     >         >     > that any disclosure, copying, distribution
    > or use
    >     > of
    >     >     > the
    >     >     >     > contents of
    >     >     >     >         > this
    >     >     >     >         >     > information, even if partially, including
    >     > attached
    >     >     > files, is
    >     >     >     > strictly
    >     >     >     >         >     > prohibited, will be considered a criminal
    >     > offense, so
    >     >     > you
    >     >     >     > must reply to
    >     >     >     >         > the
    >     >     >     >         >     > original sender to inform about this
    >     > communication and
    >     >     > delete
    >     >     >     > it.
    >     >     >     >         >     >
    >     >     >     >         >     >
    >     >     >     >         >     >
    >     >     >     >         >     >
    > _______________________________________________
    >     >     >     >         >     > v6ops mailing list
    >     >     >     >         >     > [e-mail]
    >     >     >     >         >     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
    >     >     >     >         >
    >     >     >     >         >
    >     >     >     >         >
    >     >     >     >         >
    >     >     >     >         > **********************************************
    >     >     >     >         > IPv4 is over
    >     >     >     >         > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
    >     >     >     >         > http://www.consulintel.es
    >     >     >     >         > The IPv6 Company
    >     >     >     >         >
    >     >     >     >         > This electronic message contains information
    > which may
    >     > be
    >     >     >     > privileged or
    >     >     >     >         > confidential. The information is intended to be
    > for the
    >     >     > exclusive
    >     >     >     > use of the
    >     >     >     >         > individual(s) named above and further non-
    > explicilty
    >     >     > authorized
    >     >     >     > disclosure,
    >     >     >     >         > copying, distribution or use of the contents of
    > this
    >     >     > information,
    >     >     >     > even if
    >     >     >     >         > partially, including attached files, is strictly
    >     > prohibited
    >     >     > and
    >     >     >     > will be
    >     >     >     >         > considered a criminal offense. If you are not the
    >     > intended
    >     >     >     > recipient be aware
    >     >     >     >         > that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use
    > of
    >     > the
    >     >     > contents
    >     >     >     > of this
    >     >     >     >         > information, even if partially, including
    > attached
    >     > files, is
    >     >     >     > strictly
    >     >     >     >         > prohibited, will be considered a criminal
    > offense, so
    >     > you
    >     >     > must
    >     >     >     > reply to the
    >     >     >     >         > original sender to inform about this
    > communication and
    >     > delete
    >     >     > it.
    >     >     >     >         >
    >     >     >     >         >
    >     >     >     >         >
    >     >     >     >         > _______________________________________________
    >     >     >     >         > v6ops mailing list
    >     >     >     >         > [e-mail]
    >     >     >     >         > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
    >     >     >     >
    >     >     >     >
    >     >     >     >
    >     >     >     >
    >     >     >     >
    >     >     >     > **********************************************
    >     >     >     > IPv4 is over
    >     >     >     > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
    >     >     >     > http://www.consulintel.es
    >     >     >     > The IPv6 Company
    >     >     >     >
    >     >     >     > This electronic message contains information which may be
    >     > privileged or
    >     >     >     > confidential. The information is intended to be for the
    > exclusive
    >     > use
    >     >     > of the
    >     >     >     > individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty
    > authorized
    >     >     > disclosure,
    >     >     >     > copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
    > information,
    >     > even
    >     >     > if
    >     >     >     > partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited
    > and
    >     > will be
    >     >     >     > considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended
    >     > recipient be
    >     >     > aware
    >     >     >     > that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the
    > contents
    >     > of
    >     >     > this
    >     >     >     > information, even if partially, including attached files,
    > is
    >     > strictly
    >     >     >     > prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you
    > must
    >     > reply to
    >     >     > the
    >     >     >     > original sender to inform about this communication and
    > delete it.
    >     >     >     >
    >     >     >     >
    >     >     >     >
    >     >     >     > _______________________________________________
    >     >     >     > v6ops mailing list
    >     >     >     > [e-mail]
    >     >     >     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
    >     >     >
    >     >     >
    >     >     >
    >     >     >
    >     >     > **********************************************
    >     >     > IPv4 is over
    >     >     > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
    >     >     > http://www.consulintel.es
    >     >     > The IPv6 Company
    >     >     >
    >     >     > This electronic message contains information which may be
    > privileged or
    >     >     > confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive
    > use
    >     > of the
    >     >     > individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized
    >     > disclosure,
    >     >     > copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information,
    > even
    >     > if
    >     >     > partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and
    > will be
    >     >     > considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended
    > recipient be
    >     > aware
    >     >     > that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents
    > of
    >     > this
    >     >     > information, even if partially, including attached files, is
    > strictly
    >     >     > prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must
    > reply to
    >     > the
    >     >     > original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
    >     >     >
    >     >     >
    >     >     >
    >     >     > _______________________________________________
    >     >     > v6ops mailing list
    >     >     > [e-mail]
    >     >     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
    >     >
    >     >
    >     >
    >     >
    >     > **********************************************
    >     > IPv4 is over
    >     > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
    >     > http://www.consulintel.es
    >     > The IPv6 Company
    >     >
    >     > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
    >     > confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use
    > of the
    >     > individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized
    > disclosure,
    >     > copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even
    > if
    >     > partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be
    >     > considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be
    > aware
    >     > that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of
    > this
    >     > information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
    >     > prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to
    > the
    >     > original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
    >     >
    >     >
    >     >
    >     > _______________________________________________
    >     > v6ops mailing list
    >     > [e-mail]
    >     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > **********************************************
    > IPv4 is over
    > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
    > http://www.consulintel.es
    > The IPv6 Company
    > 
    > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
    > confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the
    > individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure,
    > copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if
    > partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be
    > considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
    > that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
    > information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
    > prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the
    > original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > _______________________________________________
    > v6ops mailing list
    > [e-mail]
    > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
    



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.