[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLC
Le 2 sept. 2010 à 05:32, Tina TSOU a écrit :
> Hi Matsushima-san,
> It is very useful sharing.
> I read the slides by my guessing Japanese and Chinese characters.
>
> Would you like to share your SAM/4rd use case in Internet Draft form for Sep 21/22 WebEx meeting (I'm discussing with Fred whether change the date to one day earlier, i.e. Sep 20/21, due to the Mid Autumn Festival in some Asian countries)?
> Especially, people may be interested at how the network devices and CPE needs to change to meet the SAM/4rd requirements? Is there other experience besides the RFC related to SAM/4rd?
Actually, SAM/4rd isn't described in any RFC yet.
The reference is draft-despres-softwire-sam-01.
- Section 2 describes the generic Stateless Address mapping model (SAM).
- Section 3.2 focuses on IPv4 across IPv6 infrastructures (4rd).
- How to statelessly share IPv4 public addresses using port-extended addresses is covered in section 2.4 (IPv4E).
Regards,
RD
>
>
>
> Here is the original meeting scheduling, might be subject to change.
>
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v4tov6transition/current/msg00074.html
>
>
>
> There were two I-Ds posted for the v4tov6transition work.
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lee-v4v6tran-problem-00
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-v4v6tran-framework-00
> You comments are very welcome.
>
> I-Ds in the pipeline:
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v4tov6transition/current/msg00129.html
>
>
>
>
>
> B. R.
> Tina
> http://tinatsou.weebly.com
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lee, Yiu" <Yiu_Lee@Cable.Comcast.com>
> To: <satoru.matsushima@tm.softbank.co.jp>
> Cc: <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>; <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>; <v4tov6transition@ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 11:08 AM
> Subject: Re: [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLC
>
>
>> Hi Satoru,
>>
>> I assume most people on the list don't read Japanese. If you can summarize the press release to us, it will be much appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Yiu
>>
>> On Sep 1, 2010, at 11:04 PM, "satoru.matsushima@tm.softbank.co.jp" <satoru.matsushima@tm.softbank.co.jp> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Remi, Fred and Jari,
>>>
>>> FYI,
>>> SPs in Japan, BBIX, Internet Multifeed, JPIX and IIJ-II unveil the intention of
>>> adopting SAM/4rd as a solution for their IPv4 service over IPv6 native network.
>>>
>>> We then support including Remi's helpful comment for section 4.3 in the draft.
>>>
>>> Please take look at these joint press release.
>>>
>>> BBIX:
>>> http://www.bbix.net/press/file/press_20100831.pdf
>>>
>>> Internet Multifeed:
>>> http://www.mfeed.co.jp/press/2010/pdf/20100831.pdf
>>>
>>> JPIX:
>>> http://www.jpix.ad.jp/jp/pdf/20100831_001.pdf
>>>
>>> IIJ-II:
>>> http://www.iij.ad.jp/news/pressrelease/2010/0831.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Since these documents are written in Japanese originally, English page does not
>>> available by now. So please read these with online translation service (not sure that quality),
>>> or find your friend who can read Japanese. Sorry for that inconvenience.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Satoru Matsushima
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Rémi Després [mailto:remi.despres@free.fr]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 7:06 PM
>>>> To: Fred Baker; Jari Arkko
>>>> Cc: IPv6 v6ops; Kurt Erik Lindqvist; Ron Bonica;
>>>> v4tov6transition@ietf.org
>>>> Subject: Re: draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLC
>>>>
>>>> Hi Fred, hi Jari,
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for the late answer.
>>>> 1.
>>>> The main issue I see is the need for a better balance between
>>>> dual stack throughout and IPv6 across IPv4 infrastructures as
>>>> recommended approaches for rapid deployments.
>>>> The latter approach is more recent (with RFC 5569 and RFC
>>>> 5969 issued in January and August 2010 respectively) but, as
>>>> it proved to be the preferred one by a number of ISPs for
>>>> their first deployment, it should be documented as such.
>>>> 2.
>>>> Also, there appears a converging interest for 4rd, the
>>>> reverse of 6rd for IPv4 connectivity across IPv6-only ISP
>>>> infrastructures (draft-vautrin-softwire-4rd-00 and
>>>> draft-despres-softwire-sam-01 sec. 3.2).
>>>> As it is a potential alternative or complement to DS-lite,
>>>> that some ISPs can consider, and that at least one does
>>>> consider on a confidential basis, it should IMHO be
>>>> mentioned. (Of course it shouldn't be hidden that the
>>>> specification is still much less advanced than that of DS-lite).
>>>>
>>>> Attached is a modified version of draft-06, in PDF and and in
>>>> .doc, in which I propose an example text to cover these points.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> RD
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> v4tov6transition mailing list
>>> v4tov6transition@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4tov6transition
>> _______________________________________________
>> v4tov6transition mailing list
>> v4tov6transition@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4tov6transition
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v4tov6transition mailing list
> v4tov6transition@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4tov6transition