B. R. Tina http://tinatsou.weebly.com/index.html----- Original Message ----- From: "Rémi Després" <remi.despres@free.fr>
To: "Tina TSOU" <tena@huawei.com>Cc: <satoru.matsushima@tm.softbank.co.jp>; "Lee, Yiu" <Yiu_Lee@Cable.Comcast.com>; <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>; <v4tov6transition@ietf.org>; <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 3:42 PM Subject: 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). [Tina: That means you created both 4rd and 6rd, and you deployed 6rd, and let Japanese operators deploy 4rd? A la la;-) AFAICS, there are NA cable, broadband fixed, mobile use case I-Ds are in the pipeline. Perhaps SAM/4rd needs to be referenced at least in one of them.]
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 AMSubject: Re: [v4tov6transition] draft-arkko-ipv6-transition-guidelines WGLCHi 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, YiuOn 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.htmlSince 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