Subject: [BEHAVE] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-framework-00.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 10:45:01 -0700 (PDT)

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Behavior Engineering for Hindrance Avoidance Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation

	Author(s)	: F. Baker, X. Li, C. Bao, K. Yin
	Filename	: draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-framework-00.txt
	Pages		: 31
	Date		: 2009-7-6
	
This note describes a framework for IPv4/IPv6 translation.  This is
   in the context of replacing NAT-PT, which was deprecated by RFC 4966,
   and to enable networks to have IPv4 and IPv6 coexist in a somewhat
   rational manner while transitioning to an IPv6 network.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-framework-00.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:48:27 +0200

Wasn't this an informative document?

[email-masked] escribió:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Behave mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave
>

---

From: Xing Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:43:41 +0800

> Wasn't this an informative document?
yes, it is an informative document.

xing

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 08:53:55 +0200

> yes, it is an informative document.
current document reads:

behave                                                     F. Baker, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                             Cisco Systems
Intended status: Standards Track                              X. Li, Ed.
Expires: January 6, 2010                                     C. Bao, Ed.
                                       CERNET Center/Tsinghua University
                                                             K. Yin, Ed.
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                            July 5, 2009

                  Framework for IPv4/IPv6 Translation
                  draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-framework-00

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

which is a STD track document, so, i understand this was a mistake and 
the next version will be submitted as informational?

---

From: Rémi Després <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 15:21:18 +0200

Fred,

A.
In sec; 1.1, in the list of existing tunneling approaches for IPv6  
inside IPv4 tunnels, 6rd should in my understanding be added.

Unfortunately RFC 5569, which describes what 6rd does and how Free  
deployed it in 5 weeks, is still unpublished. It has been approved  
since the end of May by both the RFC editor and the area chairs, but  
it is delayed for the (frustrating) reason that "as an Independent  
Submission, this document will be placed on hold until the copyright  
issue pertaining to such documents is resolved."

Draft-despres-6rd-03 can be used as a (provisional) alternative  
reference.

B.
More difficult to handle is the statement in the introduction that  
"the IETF's view of the most sensible transition model" is still that  
of RFC 4213. This RFC was published in 2005, and it is only in late  
2007 that 6rd was invented as a new model to offer native IPv6 in  
customer sites across IPv4 infrastructures. Where 6rd is applicable,  
it is much simpler to deploy than what RFC 4213 recommends.

As I am sure you know, a large proportion of native IPv6 connexions  
that Google sees are still reported to be from Free's customers, i.e.  
from sites having IPv6 according to the 6rd model.
It is therefore time for IETF to no longer have ONLY one  
recommendation for the transition period, namely that service  
providers "turn on IPv6 routing within their networks" .
Using 6rd SHOULD be listed as another short term possibility, with  
the advantage that, where applicable, existing IPv4 routing is  
sufficient in provider networks.

If the principle of this addition is accepted, and if it is helpful,  
I can propose some detailed text.

Regards,
RD