Subject: [ipv6-dir] FW: ITU-T Q.9/13 IPv6 concerns

From: "Margaret Wasserman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 09:59:23 -0800

Is this something that the IPv6 directorate could prepare a response to?
Any volunteers to take the lead on getting this together?

Margaret

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott W Brim [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 1:17 PM
To: 'Margaret Wasserman'
Subject: ITU-T Q.9/13 IPv6 concerns

Hi Margaret.  Please either (1) tell me which WGs or ADs to direct
this to, or (2) compile a list of RFCs/drafts yourself.  I'm grateful.
After we have a list I'll draft up a liaison for you.

These are some specific things that Q.9/13 is concerned about.  What
the IETF should do is to send them a list of the relevant drafts and
RFCs, showing them how these issues are being addressed.

I would do this myself but I'm not an IPv6 expert and I know I'll miss
something.  All we need is a list.

- QoS signaling.  They want to be sure that they can efficiently use
  both the the transport signaling protocols (such as RSVP and NSIS)
  and the application signaling protocols (such as SIP) in an IPv6
  environment.  Relevant RFCs/drafts are those about how those
  protocols work over IPv6.

- QoS signaling interworking, IPv4<->IPv6.

- General IPv4-IPv6.  They are wondering under what conditions
  application level gateways will be required.

- Also list the structure of the flow label.  They are very interested
  in what it can be used for.

- Multihoming with IPv6.  Nothing surprising here -- just list the
  latest cool stuff for multihoming (both site and host).  They like
  SCTP.

- Mobility.

- MPLS and IPv6.

Thanks ... Scott

_______________________________________________
ipv6-dir mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-dir

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 23:20:53 +0100

> Any volunteers to take the lead on getting this together?

Sure. Scott, can you give some more background on what they are  
looking for specifically and why? This does look a bit like the  
"complete IPv6 specification" :-)

[snip]

>   latest cool stuff for multihoming (both site and host).  They like

I think it's safe to argue that the IETF has ruled out SCTP for  
multihoming...

- kurtis -

---

From: Scott W Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 18:58:57 -0800

For those who might not have seen them, this came out of
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/liaison_detail.cgi?detail_id=127
and https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file182.pdf

Thanks ... Scott