Subject: [v4v6interim] BOF discussions

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 17:13:50 -0400

So various folks are going to be doing a lot of work in email and such  
in the next few weeks. May I suggest that the ADs schedule a BOF for  
the translation solution and one for the tunneling solution (and one  
for the 4-4-4 solution?) separate from WGs, to enable the doc authors  
to sit down together and discuss?

I would also suggest that you set of mailing lists for these BOFs,  
perhaps called v4v6-xlat and v4v6-tunnel or some such. Announce them  
to this forum and let people sign up the usual way.
_______________________________________________
v4v6interim mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim

---

From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 18:19:27 -0400

Fred,

Good suggestion.  However, what if a BOF is needed to discuss a solution
where both xlat and tunnel are needed?  Do we discuss those in this WG
mailer or spawn a 3rd new BOF mailer?

Thanks.

Hemant 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of Fred Baker (fred)
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 5:14 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [v4v6interim] BOF discussions

So various folks are going to be doing a lot of work in email and such
in the next few weeks. May I suggest that the ADs schedule a BOF for the
translation solution and one for the tunneling solution (and one for the
4-4-4 solution?) separate from WGs, to enable the doc authors to sit
down together and discuss?

I would also suggest that you set of mailing lists for these BOFs,
perhaps called v4v6-xlat and v4v6-tunnel or some such. Announce them to
this forum and let people sign up the usual way.
_______________________________________________
v4v6interim mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim
_______________________________________________
v4v6interim mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim

---

From: Rémi Després <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 15:11:33 +0200

I support Fred's suggestion of separating discussion spaces for what is 
specific to tunneling and what is specific to translation.

In my understanding:
- NAT64, NAT46, and what concerns ISP infrastructure NATs (CGNs) but not 
CPE NATs, would be in v4v6-xlat
- A+P, IVI, SAM, and tunneling aspects of DS lite  would be in v4v6-Xlat
- questions that concern interactions between the two, would remain in 
the current mailing list.

RD

---

From: Marc Blanchet <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 09:15:12 -0400

> - A+P, IVI, SAM, and tunneling aspects of DS lite  would be in v4v6-Xlat

s/v4v6-xlat/v4v6-tunnel/  right?

Marc.

-- 
=========
IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley, 2006. http://www.ipv6book.ca
Stun/Turn server: http://numb.viagenie.ca

---

From: "Ed Koehler Jr" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 10:00:56 -0400

agree 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Marc Blanchet
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 9:15 AM
To: Rémi Després
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [v4v6interim] BOF discussions

Rémi Després a écrit :
> I support Fred's suggestion of separating discussion spaces for what 
> is specific to tunneling and what is specific to translation.
> 
> In my understanding:
> - NAT64, NAT46, and what concerns ISP infrastructure NATs (CGNs) but 
> not CPE NATs, would be in v4v6-xlat

Marc.

>> Good suggestion.  However, what if a BOF is needed to discuss a 
>> solution where both xlat and tunnel are needed?  Do we discuss those 
>> in this WG mailer or spawn a 3rd new BOF mailer?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Hemant
>> So various folks are going to be doing a lot of work in email and 
>> such in the next few weeks. May I suggest that the ADs schedule a BOF 
>> for the translation solution and one for the tunneling solution (and 
>> one for the

--
=========
IPv6 book: Migrating to IPv6, Wiley, 2006. http://www.ipv6book.ca Stun/Turn server: http://numb.viagenie.ca

---

From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 10:10:29 -0400

OK, Remi - sounds good.

Thanks.

Hemant 

-----Original Message-----
From: Rémi Després [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 9:12 AM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: Fred Baker (fred); [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [v4v6interim] BOF discussions

I support Fred's suggestion of separating discussion spaces for what is specific to tunneling and what is specific to translation.

In my understanding:
- NAT64, NAT46, and what concerns ISP infrastructure NATs (CGNs) but not CPE NATs, would be in v4v6-xlat
- A+P, IVI, SAM, and tunneling aspects of DS lite  would be in v4v6-Xlat
- questions that concern interactions between the two, would remain in the current mailing list.

RD

Hemant Singh (shemant)   (m/j/a) 10/3/08 12:19 AM:
> for the

---

From: Rémi Després <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:47:19 +0200

Marc Blanchet   (m/j/a) 10/3/08 3:15 PM:
> R�mi Despr�s a �crit :
Right (Oops!)

RD

---

From: Ed Jankiewicz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 10:47:29 -0400

I am most interested in translation solutions and support some "divide 
and conquer" but will try to follow all the discussions.  Given the high 
degree of overlap in interest, we need to make sure the BOFs are 
scheduled for Minneapolis so that all can attend either or both.  Also 
avoid obvious conflicts with v6ops, 6man, etc.

-- 
Ed Jankiewicz - SRI International
Fort Monmouth Branch Office - IPv6 Research 
Supporting DISA Standards Engineering Branch
732-389-1003 or  [email-masked]

---

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 11:04:18 -0400

Our Ads have re-chartered the Softwire wg to address the tunneling + nat44
case, so it is unclear to me why we would need a bof in that particular
space when the working group will be meeting in Minneapolis.

  - Alain.

---

From: Rémi Després <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 18:18:33 +0200

This seems indeed better than a BOF.
Is the new charter available?

RD

---

From: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 12:25:16 -0400

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires/current/msg00687.html

- Wes 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Rémi Després
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 12:19 PM
To: Alain Durand
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [v4v6interim] BOF discussions

RD

Alain Durand   (m/j/a) 10/3/08 5:04 PM:
> Our Ads have re-chartered the Softwire wg to address the tunneling + 
> nat44 case, so it is unclear to me why we would need a bof in that 
> particular space when the working group will be meeting in Minneapolis.
> 
>   - Alain. 
> 
> 
>> I am most interested in translation solutions and support some 
>> "divide and conquer" but will try to follow all the discussions.  
>> Given the high degree of overlap in interest, we need to make sure 
>> the BOFs are scheduled for Minneapolis so that all can attend either 
>> or both.  Also avoid obvious conflicts with v6ops, 6man, etc.
>>
>> Fred Baker wrote:
>>> such in the next few weeks. May I suggest that the ADs schedule a 
>>> BOF for the translation solution and one for the tunneling solution 
>>> (and one for the 4-4-4 solution?) separate from WGs, to enable the 
>>> doc authors to sit down together and discuss?
>>>
>> Fort Monmouth Branch Office - IPv6 Research Supporting DISA Standards 
>> Engineering Branch

---

From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 12:59:54 -0400

I agree with Alain for not having a BOF.  However, do we still keep the 3 mailers or do we not spawn the two new suggested mailers for tunnels vs. xlate?

Thanks.

Hemant 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Rémi Després
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 12:19 PM
To: Alain Durand
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [v4v6interim] BOF discussions

RD

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 13:02:18 -0700

What I'm suggesting is that the folks that need to discuss translation  
- perhaps 15 of us total - sit down and talk about it, and the same  
opportunity be available to the tunneling folks. My point is to foment  
accomplishment; as Randy says, he needs this yesterday. I have no  
problem with other discussions happening too and expect still to have  
a requirements discussion in v6ops.

On Oct 2, 2008, at 3:19 PM, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:

> solution
> the
> to

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 13:02:58 -0700

I'm OK with that if you are.

On Oct 3, 2008, at 8:04 AM, Alain Durand wrote:

> nat44
>> "divide
>>> such

---

From: Xing Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 07:19:10 +0800

>> s/v4v6-xlat/v4v6-tunnel/  right?
IVI should be in v4v6-xlat cat. xing

---

From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 20:22:15 -0400

Fred,

I hear ya.  Maybe BOF was a wrong choice of words since it took people
in the direction of thinking we didn't have a WG on this one.  The
interim meeting was so much more productive compared to discussing this
lot in a few hours at IETF Dublin in a few WG's when at any IETF, any WG
is competing with tons of other WG's that folks would like to go to as
well. 

Soon as we focused folks into one WG and no other distractions, we did
move forward in the interim meeting rather than staying in limbo at IETF
meetings.  That is why I do like your idea of few right folks getting
together at next IETF to hash more things out and BOF is indeed the
right term for such a getting together.  By all means, let the
v4v6coexistence WG do its session(s) at the next IETF, but I do think
more work will be needed in more focused smaller groups outside of the
WG session(s).

Hemant

-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Baker (fred) 
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 4:02 PM
To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [v4v6interim] BOF discussions

What I'm suggesting is that the folks that need to discuss translation
- perhaps 15 of us total - sit down and talk about it, and the same
opportunity be available to the tunneling folks. My point is to foment
accomplishment; as Randy says, he needs this yesterday. I have no
problem with other discussions happening too and expect still to have a
requirements discussion in v6ops.

On Oct 2, 2008, at 3:19 PM, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:

> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]
> ]

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 00:37:37 +0200

> BOF for the translation solution and one for the tunneling solution

Disagree. Like I've been saying for some time now: there is no  
semantic difference between the NAT64&co translation and DS-lite  
translation, only a syntactic difference. There should only be a  
single translation spec that covers both. So discussing the two  
solutions in separate places is likely to be suboptimal. Or make it  
three lists: translation issues / NAT64-specific issues / DS-lite  
specific issues.

> to this forum and let people sign up the usual way.

subscribe *

---

From: Rémi Després <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 16:45:02 +0200

> IVI should be in v4v6-xlat cat. xing

Right: IVI is indeed a translation solution.
Apologies for the mistake.

In my understanding,  is only if it is extended to support IPv4
over IPv6, and also port multiplexing (respectively sections 4.8 and 6.2 
of your draft-xli-behave-ivi-00) that commonality with a tunneling 
approach like SAM is likely to be significant.

Best regards.

RD

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 08:24:46 -0700

On Oct 6, 2008, at 7:45 AM, Rémi Després wrote:

> over IPv6, and also port multiplexing (respectively sections 4.8 and  
> 6.2 of your draft-xli-behave-ivi-00) that commonality with a  
> tunneling approach like SAM is likely to be significant.

?

There is no "over" in IVI...
_______________________________________________
v4v6interim mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim

---

From: Rémi Després <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:15:14 +0200

Alain, is right to suppose that the Softwire charter has been revised 
AFTER Montreal?

- If not, other goals and milestones than "Submit softwires MIB to the 
IESG" would clearly be missing.)

- If yes, the question remains: can we see the revised charter you seem 
to know, even in provisional form?

RD

---

From: Rémi Després <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:49:23 +0200

Fred Baker   (m/j/a) 10/6/08 5:24 PM:
> 
> On Oct 6, 2008, at 7:45 AM, R�mi Despr�s wrote:
> 
>> 6.2 of your draft-xli-behave-ivi-00) that commonality with a tunneling 
The title of section 4.8 in draft-xli-behave-ivi-00 is "IPv4 over IPv6"

First words of this section are "The IVI scheme can support the IPv4 
over IPv6 service (NAT646)".

That's what I was referring to.

RD

---

From: Xing Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:29:06 +0800

Thanks.
> approach like SAM is likely to be significant.
Oh. I see the reason. In draft-xli-behave-ivi-00, we discussed the case 
of double IVI (IPv4-IPv6-IPv4). We may compare SAM and double IVI in the 
future.

Regards,

xing

---

From: Xing Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:31:36 +0800

> That's what I was referring to.
(1) It is a scheme of double translation (IPv4-IPv6-IPv4), not 
tunneling. We should not call it "over", sorry.
(2) It is NAT464, not NAT646.

xing

---

From: Rémi Després <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:56:51 +0200

> (2) It is NAT464, not NAT646.

I see.
Thanks for the clarification.
RD
_______________________________________________
v4v6interim mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim