From ssenthil@cisco.com Fri Mar 1 04:43:47 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7C4921F8B7E for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 04:43:47 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ajpwEQH0+wOY for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 04:43:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9297021F8B6B for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 04:43:46 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=21024; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1362141826; x=1363351426; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=cvrvtuNV34cKlsh70RyUqYcHQyVK+KvtF2g1vCwuNKQ=; b=C6hB6nBQA7QcXqVBCPt+NqfmVpl4tT88ENztlepHWw0YBgc2FqrlDYmr Mvdt5h65LM0Ytg9pYF2S0TbcTKXDcpS+aOkrhTI+uJM/R6+An+yAHJHSP jB1IBg21kyfZ92nwVLYmfUV6h3id1LKN2hMuTq+s9RMbhnaVAGyswkCmF 8=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAEyhMFGtJV2b/2dsb2JhbABEgkO/cH4Wc4IhAQSBCwEqVicEG4gLn3+gfo5jgxdhA5MClCyDCIIn X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,761,1355097600"; d="scan'208,217";a="182657855" Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Mar 2013 12:43:46 +0000 Received: from xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com [173.36.12.86]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r21Chj1l022122 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 12:43:45 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x15.cisco.com ([169.254.5.42]) by xhc-aln-x12.cisco.com ([173.36.12.86]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 06:43:45 -0600 From: "Senthil Sivakumar (ssenthil)" To: "opsawg@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-ietf-opsawg-firewalls-01 Thread-Index: AQHOFnppkdk5QJkALUmQ3JMQOfkiuQ== Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 12:43:45 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.1.130117 x-originating-ip: [10.65.86.211] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CB1B483277FEC94E9B58357040EE5D02323E2DD6xmbrcdx15ciscoc_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [OPSAWG] Comments on draft-ietf-opsawg-firewalls-01 X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 12:43:48 -0000 --_000_CB1B483277FEC94E9B58357040EE5D02323E2DD6xmbrcdx15ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable At a very high level, it is not clear what this document is set out to achi= eve and what it really delivers. Particularly section 2, I really cant tell what value that this section add= s. The document says it is a BCP, so should it have a set of requirements from= a firewall vendor and operator to be effective. Without a set of requirements, this looks more like an informational docume= nt than a BCP. Specific comments below: Section 1: I would add the following about the generic nature of firewalls. "Firewalls generally operate under the notion of trusted and untrusted netw= ork domains. For example, an enterprise that employs the firewall will be considered a t= rusted domain. Flows that are originated from the trusted domain is considered as untruste= d. The packets are filtered using static and dynamic policies as defined or le= arned " Nit: An application-layer gateway (ALG) in front of a server creates a perimeter between that server and the network it is connected to. The ALG blocks some of the flows in the application protocol based on policies such as "do not all traffic from this network" and "do not allow the client to send a message of this type". s/do not all/do not allow/ Layer 4: Most firewalls can filter based on TCP and UDP ports. Many (but, frustratingly, not all) firewalls can also filter based on transports other than TCP and UDP. - Most L4 firewalls filter packets based on TCP sequence and ack numbers. T= his essentially makes the firewall a single point of failure and hence preventing asymmetric rout= ing. - Firewalls handle out of order fragments and in some cases reassembling th= e fragments to be able to inspect the L7 payload. - When a firewall suspects an attack, it sends a reset to both ends to clea= n up the connection. I personally don=92t like that, but firewalls spoof th= ese resets. "Note that many firewall devices can only create policies at one or two of = the layers." Can you please add some text on why that is the case or basis for the abov= e. Section 3.2: The section introduces the outside and inside terminology without defining = what they are. A terminology section may be necessary or some context of what outside and = inside are. I would rather prefer trusted and untrusted instead of inside and outside, = respectively. Section 4. I would highlight the inability of firewall to do Deep Packet Inspection on= encrypted traffic and hence Firewalls that look deep into the payload to make decisions are ineffective= . There are a lot of firewall capabilities that are useful to the operators l= ike: - Syn attacks can be avoided Tiny fragment attacks Should have logs turned on for major events. Section 5 I think it is pretty useful to require the firewall vendors to align the ti= meouts between NAT & Firewall, as they are deployed together. Similarly a device that has both NAT & firewall should work in tandem when = the ALGs are deployed otherwise the applications wont work. This can be in the section 4 too, as it requires the operators to understan= d that these ALGs should be enabled for both NAT & Firewall. Provide firewall logging facility of suspected attacks. I don=92t believe there is a standard firewall MIB, but that would be a use= ful one to suggest too. Firewalls do handle fragmented traffic and deal with out of order fragments= . It seems both sections 4 & 5 need some focused text on what the requirement= s are from a vendor and from an operator. Appendix A: Their security is a side-effect of their design. [[[ MORE HERE about the history and why some operators mistake the security policy of NATs with firewalls. ]]] I would suggest the following text for appendix A: "Many NAT devices implement End-point dependent mapping [as defined in RFC = 4787] and as a result, only the flows that are originated from a trusted or inside domain, will re= sult in a NAT mapping creation. This mapping Will have the destination address & port information, unless the return tra= ffic comes from the same destination address & port, NAT will drop the packet. This is not because of a security policy but sinc= e NAT's mapping database cannot find a matching entry. This gives an illusion that NAT is a security feature by disallowing traffi= c that was originated from outside. For traffic originated from the untrusted domain, the NATs most likely wont= have a matching mapping entry to allow the traffic through and hence the traffic is dropped." --_000_CB1B483277FEC94E9B58357040EE5D02323E2DD6xmbrcdx15ciscoc_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <4CA8ADE1F6F604439CD466E08456A13B@cisco.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 
At =
a very high level, it is not clear what this document is set out to achieve=
 and what it really delivers. 
Part=
icularly section 2, I really cant tell what value that this section adds.
The document says it is a BCP, so sh=
ould it have a set of requirements from a firewall vendor and operator to b=
e effective.
Without a set of requi=
rements, this looks more like an informational document than a BCP. =

Specific comments below:

Sectio=
n 1:
I would add the following abou=
t the generic nature of firewalls.
=

"Firewalls generally oper=
ate under the notion of trusted and untrusted network domains.
=

For example, an enterprise that employs the fir=
ewall will be considered a trusted domain. 
Flows that are originated from the trusted domain is consider=
ed as untrusted.
The packets are fi=
ltered using static and dynamic policies as defined or learned "

Nit:
An application-layer gate=
way (ALG) in front of a server creates a
      perimeter between that server and the network it is connected to.
      The ALG blocks some of the flows in the application protocol based
      on policies such as "do not all traffic from this network" =
and "do
      not allow the client to send a message of this type".

s/do not=
 all/do not allow/

Layer 4:=
 Most firewalls can filter based on TCP and UDP ports.
      Many (but, frustratingly, not all) firewalls can also filter based
      on transports other than TCP and UDP.

- Most L=
4 firewalls filter packets based on TCP sequence and ack numbers. This esse=
ntially makes 
the fire=
wall a single point of failure and hence preventing asymmetric routing.&nbs=
p;
- Firewa=
lls handle out of order fragments and in some cases reassembling the fragme=
nts to be able to inspect the 
L7 paylo=
ad. 
- When a=
 firewall suspects an attack, it sends a reset to both ends to clean up the=
 connection. I personally don=92t like that, but firewalls spoof these rese=
ts.

"No=
te that many firewall devices can only create policies at one or two of the=
 layers."

 Can you please add some text=
 on why that is the case or basis for the above.

Section =
3.2:

The sect=
ion introduces the outside and inside terminology without defining what the=
y are. 
A termin=
ology section may be necessary or some context of what outside and inside a=
re.
I would =
rather prefer trusted and untrusted instead of inside and outside, respecti=
vely. 

Section =
4.
I would =
highlight the inability of firewall to do Deep Packet Inspection on encrypt=
ed traffic and hence 
Firewall=
s that look deep into the payload to make decisions are ineffective.=


There ar=
e a lot of firewall capabilities that are useful to the operators like:
- Syn at=
tacks can be avoided
Tiny  fr=
agment attacks

Should h=
ave logs turned on for major events.

Section 5
I think it is pretty useful t=
o require the firewall vendors to align the timeouts between NAT & Fire=
wall, as they are deployed together.
Similarly a device that has b=
oth NAT & firewall should work in tandem when the ALGs are deployed oth=
erwise the applications wont work.
This can be in the section 4 =
too, as it requires the operators to understand that these ALGs should be e=
nabled for both NAT & Firewall.
Provide firewall logging faci=
lity of suspected attacks.
I don=92t believe there is a =
standard firewall MIB, but that would be a useful one to suggest too.
Firewalls do handle fragmente=
d traffic and deal with out of order fragments. 

It seems both sections 4 &=
; 5 need some focused text on what the requirements are from a vendor and f=
rom an operator.

Appendix A:
 Their=
 security is a side-effect of their design. [[[ MORE HERE about
   the history and why some operators mistake the security policy of
   NATs with firewalls. ]]]

I would suggest the following text for appendix A:

"Many NAT devices implement End-point dependen=
t mapping [as defined in RFC 4787] and as a result,
only the flows that are originated from=
 a trusted or inside domain, will result in a NAT mapping creation. This ma=
pping
Will have t=
he destination address & port information, unless the return traffic co=
mes from the same destination address & port,
NAT will drop the packet. This is not beca=
use of a security policy but since NAT's mapping database cannot find a mat=
ching entry. 
This gives an illusion that NAT is a security feature by disallowing traf=
fic that was originated from outside. 
For traffic originated from the untrusted domain=
, the NATs most likely wont have a matching mapping entry to allow the traf=
fic through and
 =
hence the traffic is dropped."











--_000_CB1B483277FEC94E9B58357040EE5D02323E2DD6xmbrcdx15ciscoc_-- From mrm@vmware.com Fri Mar 1 11:16:37 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E835821E8037 for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 11:16:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vMikg7rGXinY for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 11:16:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com [208.91.2.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80A9821E803F for ; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 11:16:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from sc9-mailhost2.vmware.com (sc9-mailhost2.vmware.com [10.113.161.72]) by smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AB1F281DC; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 11:16:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from zcs-prod-mta-2.vmware.com (zcs-prod-mta-2.vmware.com [10.113.163.64]) by sc9-mailhost2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37DD3B0657; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 11:16:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from zcs-prod-mta-2.vmware.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zcs-prod-mta-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 254FAE009C; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 11:16:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from zcs-prod-mbox-9.vmware.com (lbv-sc9-t2prod2-int.vmware.com [10.113.160.246]) by zcs-prod-mta-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 1 Mar 2013 11:16:36 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2013 11:16:35 -0800 (PST) From: Michael MacFaden To: opsawg Message-ID: <1792466568.8496582.1362165395924.JavaMail.root@vmware.com> In-Reply-To: <758784542.8488584.1362164486114.JavaMail.root@vmware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_8496581_1715972533.1362165395924" X-Originating-IP: [10.113.163.67] X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.0.2_GA_5569 (ZimbraWebClient - GC23 (Mac)/8.0.2_GA_5569) Thread-Topic: INET-ADDRESS-MIB doesn't define v4 in 6 -- see what happens in TCP-MIB rfc 4022? Thread-Index: w+ZqOQt/a7hbOda0F/1WJaiR2lrU3w== Subject: [OPSAWG] INET-ADDRESS-MIB doesn't define v4 in 6 -- see what happens in TCP-MIB rfc 4022? X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 19:16:38 -0000 ------=_Part_8496581_1715972533.1362165395924 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Given: /usr/sbin/snmpd --version NET-SNMP version: 5.3.2.2 Web: http://www.net-snmp.org/ Email: net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforge.net snmpwalk | grep established TCP-MIB::tcpConnectionState.ipv6."00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:ff:ff:0a:14:66:67".22.ipv6."00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:ff:ff:0a:14:64:c6".51349 = INTEGER: established(5) * TCP-MIB::tcpConnectionState.ipv6."00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:ff:ff:0a:14:66:67".22.ipv6."00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:ff:ff:0a:14:64:c6".59585 = INTEGER: established(5) * TCP-MIB::tcpConnectionState.ipv6."fc:00:00:10:00:20:01:02:00:00:00:00:00:00:01:03".22.ipv6."fc:00:00:10:00:20:01:03:02:23:32:ff:fe:de:c1:24".52684 = INTEGER: established(5) The INET-ADDRESS-MIB does not define a v4 in 6 enumeration, was there any discussion about that? To me net-snmp should be reporting the above as ipv4 entries not IPv6 though admittedly /proc/net/tcp6 is where the data are being sourced. Mike ------=_Part_8496581_1715972533.1362165395924 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Given:

=
/usr/sbin/snmpd --version<= /span>

NET-SNMP version: 5.3.2.2
Web: http://www.net-snmp.o= rg/Email: net-snmp-coders@lists.sourceforg= e.net

snmpwalk | grep established

TCP-MIB::tcpConnection= State.ipv6."00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:ff:ff:0a:14:66:67".22.ipv6."00:00= :00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:ff:ff:0a:14:64:c6".51349 =3D INTEGER: established(= 5) *
TCP-MIB::tcpConnectionState.ipv6."00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:ff:= ff:0a:14:66:67".22.ipv6."00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:00:ff:ff:0a:14:64:c6".5= 9585 =3D INTEGER: established(5) *
TCP-MIB::tcpConnectionState.ipv6."fc:= 00:00:10:00:20:01:02:00:00:00:00:00:00:01:03".22.ipv6."fc:00:00:10:00:20:01= :03:02:23:32:ff:fe:de:c1:24".52684 =3D INTEGER: established(5)

The INET-ADDRESS-MIB does not define a v4 in 6 e= numeration,  was there any discussion about that?

To me net-snmp should be reporting the above as i= pv4 entries not IPv6 though ad= mittedly /proc/net/tcp6 is where the data are being sourced.

<= span style=3D"font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style=3D"font-size: 12pt;">Mike


------=_Part_8496581_1715972533.1362165395924-- From j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Mon Mar 4 00:07:40 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 499F621F889C for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 00:07:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.649 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 94ZyCIRGhAUS for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 00:07:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 956E321F86DE for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 00:07:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (demetrius2.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.47]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB526209DC; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 09:07:37 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius2.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RZFnm0AOzE5W; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 09:07:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B75E2096B; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 09:07:36 +0100 (CET) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id DF0BA24D2C62; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 09:07:47 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 09:07:47 +0100 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Michael MacFaden Message-ID: <20130304080747.GB6827@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: Michael MacFaden , opsawg References: <758784542.8488584.1362164486114.JavaMail.root@vmware.com> <1792466568.8496582.1362165395924.JavaMail.root@vmware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1792466568.8496582.1362165395924.JavaMail.root@vmware.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: opsawg Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] INET-ADDRESS-MIB doesn't define v4 in 6 -- see what happens in TCP-MIB rfc 4022? X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2013 08:07:40 -0000 On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 11:16:35AM -0800, Michael MacFaden wrote: [...] > The INET-ADDRESS-MIB does not define a v4 in 6 enumeration, was there any discussion about that? It is too long ago for me to remember. It could be that we decided to stay away from modeling special IPv6 address formats since this is difficult to version. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From mrm@vmware.com Mon Mar 4 16:26:12 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F38341F0D0B for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 16:26:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gNGIRtAd-dxj for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 16:26:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com [208.91.2.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 880581F0D05 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 16:26:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from sc9-mailhost3.vmware.com (sc9-mailhost3.vmware.com [10.113.161.73]) by smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 436E028315; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 16:26:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from zcs-prod-mta-3.vmware.com (zcs-prod-mta-3.vmware.com [10.113.163.65]) by sc9-mailhost3.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E84E400B2; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 16:26:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from zcs-prod-mta-3.vmware.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zcs-prod-mta-3.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26BECE0085; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 16:26:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from zcs-prod-mbox-9.vmware.com (lbv-sc9-t2prod2-int.vmware.com [10.113.160.246]) by zcs-prod-mta-3.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 16:26:11 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 16:26:10 -0800 (PST) From: Michael MacFaden To: Juergen Schoenwaelder , Hirochika Asai Message-ID: <1378131277.677263.1362443170838.JavaMail.root@vmware.com> In-Reply-To: <2055023019.666623.1362441871704.JavaMail.root@vmware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.113.163.67] X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.0.2_GA_5569 (ZimbraWebClient - GC23 (Mac)/8.0.2_GA_5569) Thread-Topic: VMM-MIB joint proposal: Item 3 - VM-MIB paused != suspended Thread-Index: k+oTuuPP0atvlYpAZWGADtE7lEwH+w== Cc: opsawg Subject: [OPSAWG] VMM-MIB joint proposal: Item 3 - VM-MIB paused != suspended X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 00:26:12 -0000 Hi, In: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-asai-vmm-mib-02.txt Think we need to clarify the concept of 'pause' in both admin and operational states. VirtualMachineAdminState ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The administrative state of a virtual machine: on(1) The administrative power state of the virtual machine is off. off(2) The administrative power state of the virtual machine is on. pause(3) The administrative power state of the virtual machine is hibernated or suspended." SYNTAX INTEGER { on(1), off(2), pause(3) } A virtual machine is a OS process. An operator can suspend it in memory (pkill -HUP ${myvm}). HOST-RESOURCES-MIB (rfc 2790) would report the VM process in hrSWRunTable as state notRunnable. hrSWRunStatus OBJECT-TYPE SYNTAX INTEGER { running(1), runnable(2), -- waiting for resource -- (i.e., CPU, memory, IO) notRunnable(3), -- loaded but waiting for event invalid(4) -- not loaded } MAX-ACCESS read-write STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The status of this running piece of software. Setting this value to invalid(4) shall cause this software to stop running and to be unloaded. Sets to other values are not valid." ::= { hrSWRunEntry 7 } That's how I naturally think of what 'pause' as opposed to 'suspend or hibernate' which takes the process out of memory deep-freeze's running state (for a given CPU hardware) to persistent storage. Thanks, Mike MacFaden From mrm@vmware.com Mon Mar 4 16:59:08 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5215321F84C2 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 16:59:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FJWsnErbjk8B for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 16:59:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com [208.91.2.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E48DD21F84BB for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 16:59:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from sc9-mailhost1.vmware.com (sc9-mailhost1.vmware.com [10.113.161.71]) by smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA2792822A; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 16:59:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from zcs-prod-mta-1.vmware.com (zcs-prod-mta-1.vmware.com [10.113.163.63]) by sc9-mailhost1.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6D6D181D2; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 16:59:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from zcs-prod-mta-1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zcs-prod-mta-1.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4022E14C7; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 16:59:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from zcs-prod-mbox-9.vmware.com (lbv-sc9-t2prod2-int.vmware.com [10.113.160.246]) by zcs-prod-mta-1.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Mon, 4 Mar 2013 16:59:07 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 16:59:07 -0800 (PST) From: Michael MacFaden To: Juergen Schoenwaelder , Hirochika Asai Message-ID: <905031100.693342.1362445147535.JavaMail.root@vmware.com> In-Reply-To: <1378131277.677263.1362443170838.JavaMail.root@vmware.com> References: <1378131277.677263.1362443170838.JavaMail.root@vmware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.113.163.67] X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.0.2_GA_5569 (ZimbraWebClient - GC23 (Mac)/8.0.2_GA_5569) Thread-Topic: VMM-MIB joint proposal: Item 3 - VM-MIB paused != suspended Thread-Index: k+oTuuPP0atvlYpAZWGADtE7lEwH+yECzNQp Cc: opsawg Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] VMM-MIB joint proposal: Item 3 - VM-MIB paused != suspended X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 00:59:08 -0000 A correction to my prior post. mrm@vmware.com writes: > A virtual machine is a OS process. An operator can suspend it in memory > (pkill -HUP ${myvm}). pkill -STOP ${myvm} Thanks, Mike MacFaden From mach.chen@huawei.com Tue Mar 5 01:25:24 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E84EF21F8578 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 01:25:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.845 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.845 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.754, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s53O1VNxNc-r for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 01:25:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0A4D21F8540 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 01:25:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AQI05210; Tue, 05 Mar 2013 09:25:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LHREML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 09:25:13 +0000 Received: from SZXEML449-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.192) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 17:25:21 +0800 Received: from szxeml558-mbs.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.4]) by szxeml449-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.82.67.192]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 17:25:15 +0800 From: Mach Chen To: "opsawg@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: Ask for comments//FW: New Version Notification for draft-chen-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework-01.txt Thread-Index: AQHOGYNYM/JZIQDrzU+1EaS/4wtdlA== Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 09:25:14 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US, zh-CN Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.96.176] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Subject: [OPSAWG] Ask for comments//FW: New Version Notification for draft-chen-coloring-based-ipfpm-framework-01.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 09:25:24 -0000 SGkgRm9ya3MsDQoNCldlIHVwbG9hZGVkIGEgZHJhZnQgdGhhdCBkZXNjcmliZXMgYSBmcmFtZXdv cmsgZm9yICJjb2xvcmluZyIgYmFzZWQgSVAgcGVyZm9ybWFuY2UgbWVhc3VyZW1lbnQsIHdlIHdv dWxkIGxpa2UgdG8gdGFrZSBpdCB0byBJUFBNLCBidXQgaXQgc2VlbXMgdG8gYmUgb3V0IG9mIHNj b3BlIG9mIHRoZWlyIGNoYXJ0ZXIuIEkgd291bGQgbGlrZSB0byBoZWFyIHlvdXIgb3BpbmlvbnMg b2YgdGhlIHdvcmsuDQoNClRoZSBjb25jZXB0IG9mICJjb2xvcmluZyIgSVAgcGFja2V0cyBmb3Ig cGVyZm9ybWFuY2UgbWVhc3VyZW1lbnQgaXMgZGVzY3JpYmVkIGluIGh0dHA6Ly90b29scy5pZXRm Lm9yZy9odG1sL2RyYWZ0LXRlbXBpYS1vcHNhd2ctcDNtLTAyIC4gQnkgImNvbG9yaW5nIiB0aGUg cGFja2V0cyBvZiBhIHNwZWNpZmljIElQIGZsb3cgdG8gZGlmZmVyZW50IGNvbG9ycywgaXQgbmF0 dXJhbGx5IHNwbGl0cyB0aGUgSVAgZmxvdyBpbnRvIGRlZmVyZW50IGNvbnNlY3V0aXZlIGJsb2Nr cyBhbmQgZ2l2ZXMgYSB3YXkgdG8gbWVhc3VyZSB0aGUgcmVhbCBwYWNrZXQgbG9zcyBhbmQgZGVs YXkgd2l0aG91dCBpbnNlcnRpbmcgYW55IGV4dHJhIE9BTSBwYWNrZXRzLg0KDQpCZXN0IHJlZ2Fy ZHMsDQpNYWNoDQoNCi0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0tDQpGcm9tOiBpbnRlcm5ldC1k cmFmdHNAaWV0Zi5vcmcgW21haWx0bzppbnRlcm5ldC1kcmFmdHNAaWV0Zi5vcmddIA0KU2VudDog TW9uZGF5LCBGZWJydWFyeSAyNSwgMjAxMyAzOjM0IFBNDQpUbzogTWFjaCBDaGVuDQpDYzogTGl1 aG9uZ21pbmc7IFlpbnl1YW5iaW4NClN1YmplY3Q6IE5ldyBWZXJzaW9uIE5vdGlmaWNhdGlvbiBm b3IgZHJhZnQtY2hlbi1jb2xvcmluZy1iYXNlZC1pcGZwbS1mcmFtZXdvcmstMDEudHh0DQoNCg0K QSBuZXcgdmVyc2lvbiBvZiBJLUQsIGRyYWZ0LWNoZW4tY29sb3JpbmctYmFzZWQtaXBmcG0tZnJh bWV3b3JrLTAxLnR4dA0KaGFzIGJlZW4gc3VjY2Vzc2Z1bGx5IHN1Ym1pdHRlZCBieSBNYWNoKEd1 b3lpKSBDaGVuIGFuZCBwb3N0ZWQgdG8gdGhlDQpJRVRGIHJlcG9zaXRvcnkuDQoNCkZpbGVuYW1l OgkgZHJhZnQtY2hlbi1jb2xvcmluZy1iYXNlZC1pcGZwbS1mcmFtZXdvcmsNClJldmlzaW9uOgkg MDENClRpdGxlOgkJIENvbG9yaW5nIGJhc2VkIElQIEZsb3cgUGVyZm9ybWFuY2UgTWVhc3VyZW1l bnQgRnJhbWV3b3JrDQpDcmVhdGlvbiBkYXRlOgkgMjAxMy0wMi0yNQ0KR3JvdXA6CQkgSW5kaXZp ZHVhbCBTdWJtaXNzaW9uDQpOdW1iZXIgb2YgcGFnZXM6IDE3DQpVUkw6ICAgICAgICAgICAgIGh0 dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaW50ZXJuZXQtZHJhZnRzL2RyYWZ0LWNoZW4tY29sb3JpbmctYmFz ZWQtaXBmcG0tZnJhbWV3b3JrLTAxLnR4dA0KU3RhdHVzOiAgICAgICAgICBodHRwOi8vZGF0YXRy YWNrZXIuaWV0Zi5vcmcvZG9jL2RyYWZ0LWNoZW4tY29sb3JpbmctYmFzZWQtaXBmcG0tZnJhbWV3 b3JrDQpIdG1saXplZDogICAgICAgIGh0dHA6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9odG1sL2RyYWZ0LWNo ZW4tY29sb3JpbmctYmFzZWQtaXBmcG0tZnJhbWV3b3JrLTAxDQpEaWZmOiAgICAgICAgICAgIGh0 dHA6Ly93d3cuaWV0Zi5vcmcvcmZjZGlmZj91cmwyPWRyYWZ0LWNoZW4tY29sb3JpbmctYmFzZWQt aXBmcG0tZnJhbWV3b3JrLTAxDQoNCkFic3RyYWN0Og0KICAgQnkgc2V0dGluZyBvbmUgdW51c2Vk IGJpdCBvZiB0aGUgSVAgaGVhZGVyIG9mIHBhY2tldHMgdG8gImNvbG9yIiB0aGUNCiAgIHBhY2tl dHMgaW50byBkaWZmZXJlbnQgY29sb3IgYmxvY2tzLCBpdCBuYXR1cmFsbHkgZ2l2ZXMgYSB3YXkg dG8NCiAgIG1lYXN1cmUgdGhlIHJlYWwgcGFja2V0IGxvc3MgYW5kIGRlbGF5IHdpdGhvdXQgaW5z ZXJ0aW5nIGFueSBleHRyYQ0KICAgT0FNIHBhY2tldHMuICBUaGlzIGlzIGNhbGxlZCAiY29sb3Jp bmciIGJhc2VkIElQIEZsb3cgUGVyZm9ybWFuY2UNCiAgIE1lYXN1cmVtZW50IChJUEZQTSkuICBU aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50IHNwZWNpZmllcyBhIGZyYW1ld29yayBhbmQNCiAgIHByb3RvY29sIGZvciB0 aGlzICJjb2xvcmluZyIgYmFzZWQgSVBGUE0uDQoNCg0KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg IA0KDQoNClRoZSBJRVRGIFNlY3JldGFyaWF0DQoNCg== From j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Tue Mar 5 03:21:01 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD09121F8758 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 03:21:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.032 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.032 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.217, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kx1q8d1-amut for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 03:21:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBF9521F87E7 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 03:20:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (demetrius3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.48]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0151820BD7; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 12:20:59 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id M1YqJC8Qv5lq; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 12:20:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ABA320BCD; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 12:20:57 +0100 (CET) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 0DD7424D69CE; Tue, 5 Mar 2013 12:21:07 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 12:21:07 +0100 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Michael MacFaden Message-ID: <20130305112106.GB12453@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: Michael MacFaden , Hirochika Asai , opsawg References: <2055023019.666623.1362441871704.JavaMail.root@vmware.com> <1378131277.677263.1362443170838.JavaMail.root@vmware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1378131277.677263.1362443170838.JavaMail.root@vmware.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: opsawg Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] VMM-MIB joint proposal: Item 3 - VM-MIB paused != suspended X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2013 11:21:01 -0000 On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 04:26:10PM -0800, Michael MacFaden wrote: > > Hi, > > In: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-asai-vmm-mib-02.txt > > Think we need to clarify the concept of 'pause' in both admin > and operational states. [...] > A virtual machine is a OS process. An operator can suspend it in > memory (pkill -HUP ${myvm}). HOST-RESOURCES-MIB (rfc 2790) would > report the VM process in hrSWRunTable as state notRunnable. I think this is not necessarily correct. With Xen, for example, virtual machines are not showing up as OS processes. > That's how I naturally think of what 'pause' as opposed to 'suspend > or hibernate' which takes the process out of memory deep-freeze's > running state (for a given CPU hardware) to persistent storage. I think that is actually what libvirt understands by a paused domain as well. In fact, they have an enum VIR_DOMAIN_PAUSED in virDomainState with a comment saying "the domain is paused by user". So are we all talking about the same state here and all you are looking for is more text? If so, what about a concerete proposal we can word smith? /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From zehn.cao@gmail.com Wed Mar 6 00:39:41 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 729F921F852A for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 00:39:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FxZClyjr9vDL for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 00:39:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-we0-x22b.google.com (mail-we0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8289421F8534 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 00:39:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-we0-f171.google.com with SMTP id u54so7712938wey.16 for ; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 00:39:38 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Ml7sN58E/I4HT2aWQmK4CJwDvy8qRnMdriNUjsWCXPE=; b=SbByuXwDL5mIVyb5GcC0ZqugUw7w7duaVZaFaH/5wLi8VGDM2R6PDC6HKg7NJC2uoO H0J5nSgSYDBMcaS8o3OLXaCh8ySOwdlKLQa0KZKzNh8CjBhd5isLWR37yfreEy81xwXe CfFoDYJiAlbEoejjugMfD28XH3tgp6zuSOCKqdF9/lEofDGxN2CX/WpkN59Y+uouyryh 18pW4y3ngZ3OR6EK9V7HKdi/mbm1zSMMuyBKgz0YIhKdSHbcgYDbw0zKyb0stcjd7900 ZlIn7um4lKQxNtXEg+DAMlm0yeHxrdEzhsraN7Q4iuevYqETIl0UT3g+HPJzzjOO8yCG Jqgw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.97.166 with SMTP id eb6mr23922255wib.20.1362559178582; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 00:39:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.112.136 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 00:39:38 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 16:39:38 +0800 Message-ID: From: "Cao,Zhen (cz)" To: opsawg@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: [OPSAWG] Call for comment: draft-zhang-opsawg-capwap-eap-00 X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 08:39:41 -0000 Dear All, My co-author could not ping the mailing list successfully, so I am forwarding the message as below. Thank you in advance for help comment and discuss. Best regards, zhen ------------------ Original ------------------ From: zhangr@gsta.com Date: 2013=C4=EA03=D4=C206=C8=D5 12=CA=B109=B7=D6 To: opsawg Subject: Call for comment: draft-zhang-opsawg-capwap-eap-00 Hello all. According to last time working group's discussion, we have updated our draft with opsawg. Thanks for your comments in advance http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-zhang-opsawg-capwap-eap-00 Best regards, Zhang Rong China Telecom From melinda.shore@gmail.com Wed Mar 6 10:01:43 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C4E321F8815 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 10:01:43 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.574 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.605, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ol-8w-dzVLcC for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 10:01:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-x236.google.com (mail-ie0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E05021F8606 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 10:01:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ie0-f182.google.com with SMTP id k14so9740909iea.41 for ; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 10:01:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=MRpvdk56/vmXLf30JSAY+XC4UC3vWVbqSi5Q0ehiP/0=; b=jV5R+99tMhDMUXkzJzYPf0Vv9RnVWXASKc1tXWabM+/E8yaZK9gwpDV1GmGHUbDiSf DzcsEucXhV3KcNk2IgjnpfFYanW76qqq+sKJHwl+wVXEwq8Qx83IotWG3lBh7XcGvA1M rHRGTr9MBqznRZRx/vdlmW9Oh5qdbenCig4Df72idFmaNEkncLYetnaaRH6Q1PQpnoMF ir28qYgALT/DtCHQ5jpYtOppSVZO0S3vdFcsRhLYhTLAKLjO7EGAMYIcwRtxP7GAJ35n cEGnP5CVYxZoxm+wDHoyAjIk07LUnRsiYDxr2+W9PPUBAE90eeF0tcFxcJL1cMG/4M2L OvaA== X-Received: by 10.50.236.42 with SMTP id ur10mr11418244igc.16.1362592895984; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 10:01:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from spandex.local (66-230-81-193-rb1.fai.dsl.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [66.230.81.193]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ew5sm25459267igc.2.2013.03.06.10.01.33 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 06 Mar 2013 10:01:34 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <5137847B.2060408@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 09:01:31 -0900 From: Melinda Shore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130216 Thunderbird/17.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "opsawg@ietf.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [OPSAWG] Agenda X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 18:01:43 -0000 A preliminary agenda for next week's meeting has been uploaded and is available at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/agenda/agenda-86-opsawg. If you've been given time on the agenda, please send your slides along as soon as they're ready. And please, remember that the most productive use of meeting time is to discuss issues that have been raised on the mailing list or for which you'd like feedback from working group participants. Please assume that we've already read your draft and don't need to have it presented to us. Thanks, and see you next week, Melinda From mrm@vmware.com Wed Mar 6 23:44:50 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76CFB21F8C3D for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 23:44:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EJDvGb4ADn7h for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 23:44:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com [208.91.2.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93BC321F8C3C for ; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 23:44:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from sc9-mailhost2.vmware.com (sc9-mailhost2.vmware.com [10.113.161.72]) by smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B17D284D6; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 23:44:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from zcs-prod-mta-2.vmware.com (zcs-prod-mta-2.vmware.com [10.113.163.64]) by sc9-mailhost2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36FA2B00AC; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 23:44:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from zcs-prod-mta-2.vmware.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zcs-prod-mta-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C290E0607; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 23:44:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from zcs-prod-mbox-9.vmware.com (lbv-sc9-t2prod2-int.vmware.com [10.113.160.246]) by zcs-prod-mta-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 23:44:48 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 23:44:48 -0800 (PST) From: Michael MacFaden To: Juergen Schoenwaelder Message-ID: <2057664860.2274702.1362642288213.JavaMail.root@vmware.com> In-Reply-To: <20130305112106.GB12453@elstar.local> References: <2055023019.666623.1362441871704.JavaMail.root@vmware.com> <1378131277.677263.1362443170838.JavaMail.root@vmware.com> <20130305112106.GB12453@elstar.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.113.62.222] X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.0.2_GA_5569 (ZimbraWebClient - GC23 (Mac)/8.0.2_GA_5569) Thread-Topic: VMM-MIB joint proposal: Item 3 - VM-MIB paused != suspended Thread-Index: bU0QIMlIl/cfDA8N/DerL+3zGoxgfQ== Cc: opsawg Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] VMM-MIB joint proposal: Item 3 - VM-MIB paused != suspended X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 07:44:50 -0000 mrm wrote: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-asai-vmm-mib-02.txt > > > > Think we need to clarify the concept of 'pause' in both admin > > and operational states. juergen wrote: > So are we all talking about the same state here and all you are looking > for is more text? If so, what about a concerete proposal we can word > smith? Sure, here's a proposed update: VirtualMachineAdminState ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The administrative state of a virtual machine (VM): on(1) The administrative state of the virtual machine indicating the VM should be brought online. off(2) The administrative state of the virtual machine indicating the VM should be taken offline. suspend(3) The administrative state of the virtual machine where its memory and cpu execution state has been saved to persistent store and will be restored at next power on(1). pause(4) The administrative state indicating the virtual machine is resident in memory but is no longer scheduled to execute by the hypervisor." SYNTAX INTEGER { on(1), off(2), suspend(3) pause(4) } Cheers, Mike MacFaden From j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de Thu Mar 7 00:28:34 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A75A211E80D9 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 00:28:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.087 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.163, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dB4N05stSgkP for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 00:28:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B55F21F8949 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 00:28:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (demetrius3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.48]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8499620BF1; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 09:28:32 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zsNtiDMgRvcW; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 09:28:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1E1F20BE2; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 09:28:31 +0100 (CET) Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id C87E524DE89C; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 09:28:42 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 09:28:42 +0100 From: Juergen Schoenwaelder To: Michael MacFaden Message-ID: <20130307082842.GA41504@elstar.local> Mail-Followup-To: Michael MacFaden , Hirochika Asai , opsawg References: <2055023019.666623.1362441871704.JavaMail.root@vmware.com> <1378131277.677263.1362443170838.JavaMail.root@vmware.com> <20130305112106.GB12453@elstar.local> <2057664860.2274702.1362642288213.JavaMail.root@vmware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2057664860.2274702.1362642288213.JavaMail.root@vmware.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: opsawg Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] VMM-MIB joint proposal: Item 3 - VM-MIB paused != suspended X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 08:28:34 -0000 On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 11:44:48PM -0800, Michael MacFaden wrote: > > mrm wrote: > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-asai-vmm-mib-02.txt > > > > > > Think we need to clarify the concept of 'pause' in both admin > > > and operational states. > > juergen wrote: > > So are we all talking about the same state here and all you are looking > > for is more text? If so, what about a concerete proposal we can word > > smith? > > Sure, here's a proposed update: > > VirtualMachineAdminState ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION > STATUS current > DESCRIPTION > "The administrative state of a virtual machine (VM): > > on(1) The administrative state of the > virtual machine indicating the VM should > be brought online. > > off(2) The administrative state of the > virtual machine indicating the VM > should be taken offline. > > suspend(3) The administrative state of the > virtual machine where its memory and cpu execution > state has been saved to persistent store and will be > restored at next power on(1). > > pause(4) The administrative state indicating > the virtual machine is resident in memory > but is no longer scheduled to execute by the > hypervisor." > > > SYNTAX INTEGER { > on(1), > off(2), > suspend(3) > pause(4) > } OK. If we add an administrative suspend state, we likely also need a corresponding operational state, no? /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 From dromasca@avaya.com Thu Mar 7 00:47:49 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7D3221F8A42 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 00:47:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.499 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0SW05q3w8oRR for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 00:47:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DD8F21F8A3F for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 00:47:49 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgMFAHpXMFGHCzI1/2dsb2JhbABEgma/Tn8Wc4IfAQEBAQMBAQEPKDQLDAQCAQgNBAQBAQsUCQcnCxQJCAIEAQ0FCAEZh3EBC6RWnEOOYzEHBoJZYQOcWopRgwiCJw X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,760,1355115600"; d="scan'208";a="908131" Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 07 Mar 2013 03:47:48 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO AZ-FFEXHC01.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.58.11]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 07 Mar 2013 03:46:21 -0500 Received: from AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com ([fe80::6db7:b0af:8480:c126]) by AZ-FFEXHC01.global.avaya.com ([135.64.58.11]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 03:47:47 -0500 From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: Melinda Shore , "opsawg@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] Agenda Thread-Index: AQHOGpS2JDx7RwO/kE+c2Fh7ur968ZiZ638A Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 08:47:47 +0000 Message-ID: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA0A206C@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> References: <5137847B.2060408@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5137847B.2060408@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.64.58.45] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Edward Beili Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Agenda X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 08:47:49 -0000 I apologize for the late request.=20 I would like to use 5 min in the opsawg slot for draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5066b= is-01.=20 Is this still possible?=20 Thanks and Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Melinda Shore > Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 8:02 PM > To: opsawg@ietf.org > Subject: [OPSAWG] Agenda >=20 > A preliminary agenda for next week's meeting has been uploaded and is > available at http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/agenda/agenda-86-opsawg. >=20 > If you've been given time on the agenda, please send your slides along > as soon as they're ready. And please, remember that the most productive > use of meeting time is to discuss issues that have been raised on the > mailing list or for which you'd like feedback from working group > participants. Please assume that we've already read your draft and > don't need to have it presented to us. >=20 > Thanks, and see you next week, >=20 > Melinda > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From denghui02@gmail.com Thu Mar 7 03:08:18 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13A0D21F8CE7 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 03:08:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n4zWyuIIiCtt for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 03:08:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-qa0-f54.google.com (mail-qa0-f54.google.com [209.85.216.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50B9E21F8CD0 for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 03:08:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-qa0-f54.google.com with SMTP id hg5so218372qab.6 for ; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 03:08:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=SIbjIv8f9AyNxF6DEBzkeT+VwpO8DP3kI0Z9FzAts5c=; b=bxMrvR1GqiXQEePsB/D5FFXu8OAilXWu4guQQQuUoZa3X/KVRtB8oyvSTvyUd7zWFi U5kHjVg35urfrnJgV2kLstzq8CPj0Kh5gJC8EDP8U1kDjGj6DF8JFIqsFd5OUvYL1oZV coB1dVOfFOfE+EjpmFAfcVFGH+ly5o+/3BKGpVtD+RUD/rCkRnhhDP3iiN/A7hF9kpzH f/CxjWmUCLmQkhnAzUfWLFSQ/gb9H8dMzqf+opdjDIyb9Wpzs4UycR99QJOLet3GT2iJ hQDckvzg0t6dpnDnuABtAyue5NBhr48zl3OqTt04Dw1Awcbhb3YF8nEkfyM3tF6LYe2b dq4Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.224.168.144 with SMTP id u16mr50318280qay.18.1362654496819; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 03:08:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.49.97.193 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 03:08:16 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 19:08:16 +0800 Message-ID: From: Hui Deng To: opsawg@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3074d8663c126a04d753b9ca Subject: [OPSAWG] Thanks for your review: draft-shao-opsawg-capwap-hybridmac-00 X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 11:08:18 -0000 --20cf3074d8663c126a04d753b9ca Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hello all there are several customers of IETF capwap protocol who have jointly writen below draft together, we would appreciate your comments on our draft, thanks a lot http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-shao-opsawg-capwap-hybridmac-00.txt Best regards, -Hui --20cf3074d8663c126a04d753b9ca Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello all
=A0
there are several customers of IETF = capwap protocol who have jointly writen below draft together,
we= would appreciate your comments on our draft, thanks a lot
=A0
Best regards,
=A0
-Hui
--20cf3074d8663c126a04d753b9ca-- From mrm@vmware.com Thu Mar 7 10:09:27 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1167421F857B for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 10:09:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -110.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CVLR9A0nv2WI for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 10:09:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com [208.91.2.12]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCCDD21F856F for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 10:09:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from sc9-mailhost2.vmware.com (sc9-mailhost2.vmware.com [10.113.161.72]) by smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E8962866B; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 10:09:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from zcs-prod-mta-2.vmware.com (zcs-prod-mta-2.vmware.com [10.113.163.64]) by sc9-mailhost2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 592CBB07C8; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 10:09:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from zcs-prod-mta-2.vmware.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zcs-prod-mta-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A726E00E2; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 10:09:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from zcs-prod-mbox-9.vmware.com (lbv-sc9-t2prod2-int.vmware.com [10.113.160.246]) by zcs-prod-mta-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 10:09:15 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2013 10:09:15 -0800 (PST) From: Michael MacFaden To: Juergen Schoenwaelder Message-ID: <869034053.2650337.1362679755089.JavaMail.root@vmware.com> In-Reply-To: <20130307082842.GA41504@elstar.local> References: <2055023019.666623.1362441871704.JavaMail.root@vmware.com> <1378131277.677263.1362443170838.JavaMail.root@vmware.com> <20130305112106.GB12453@elstar.local> <2057664860.2274702.1362642288213.JavaMail.root@vmware.com> <20130307082842.GA41504@elstar.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.113.163.67] X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.0.2_GA_5569 (ZimbraWebClient - GC23 (Mac)/8.0.2_GA_5569) Thread-Topic: VMM-MIB joint proposal: Item 3 - VM-MIB paused != suspended Thread-Index: kYaxksWkD/qfjpGXuN0PA4t2FbUb6g== Cc: opsawg Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] VMM-MIB joint proposal: Item 3 - VM-MIB paused != suspended X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 18:09:27 -0000 > OK. If we add an administrative suspend state, we likely also need a > corresponding operational state, no? Agreed. A VM would transition to paused(5) state imo. VirtualMachineOperState ::= TEXTUAL-CONVENTION STATUS current DESCRIPTION "The operational state of a virtual machine: unknown(1) The state is unknown, e.g., because the implementation failed to obtain the state from the hypervisor. other(2) The state has been obtained but it is not a known state. running(3) The virtual machine is currently running. blocked(4) The virtual machine is currently blocked. paused(5) The virtual machine is currently paused. migrating(6) The virtual machine is currently migrating. shutdown(7) The virtual machine is currently in the process of shutting down. shutoff(8) The virtual machine is down. crashed(9) The virtual machine has crashed." Now if admin state is set to suspend, then the resting state of the VM I believe should be shutoff(7) if operation was successful otherwise the VM transitions to one of running, blocked, crashed, other, unknown. Given suspend operations can take a long time some implementations may report the transition to shutdown(7) before shutoff(7) while other implementations will not. Existing fielded IF-MIB implementations exhibit this behavior as well. While IF-MIB module provides a rich set of states, many implementations only use a subset. Will send out more text to make explicit what we the designers intend was for state transitions. Mike MacFaden From melinda.shore@gmail.com Fri Mar 8 09:52:26 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B86721F8644 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 09:52:26 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.695 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.695 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.726, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KhaGQyFjDyJt for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 09:52:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-ie0-x233.google.com (mail-ie0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC8D221F8745 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 09:52:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-ie0-f179.google.com with SMTP id k11so2420091iea.24 for ; Fri, 08 Mar 2013 09:52:23 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=pA4KPRJQV9IhQm6wznJa3k7lNyuuyj4GpGjPNmBBGf4=; b=jWBeZI6LJBFbFHktl7WEnoxl3A2qHCsy6DQwsXhhKL0bv7lgFXBgiNIoG8CjszR62w A87NVjMrAb1nmUIT6lvnN9HURupYuonmNbxW/iURLm62w2MqVnFrxMrAjs0ME4fJBLmB 0LVjDMNP1v3k38s5WrysYoeXsgKlAyYoeVk9T7YFbpfjLOwvy8QLDkUitfUfmeLsnDVP UvpMYqx8qq9bP54Oqa8rg4IwMJw5/+S8EHZy5DUlPOr7Ib0Anj8MZSd5lQLxaf6QjFW/ 2LtQf8qmAl84RWQymdftLAE2XWrAZZbTNQ9ViaY9bOSK1wYS7Mr0ztVYIwlWufmCXK8G mgwQ== X-Received: by 10.50.186.134 with SMTP id fk6mr18551483igc.9.1362765143640; Fri, 08 Mar 2013 09:52:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from spandex.local (66-230-81-193-rb1.fai.dsl.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [66.230.81.193]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id dy5sm7108320igc.1.2013.03.08.09.52.21 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 08 Mar 2013 09:52:22 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <513A2553.9020200@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 08:52:19 -0900 From: Melinda Shore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130216 Thunderbird/17.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" References: <5137847B.2060408@gmail.com> <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA0A206C@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> In-Reply-To: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA0A206C@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org" , Edward Beili Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Agenda X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2013 17:52:26 -0000 On 3/6/13 11:47 PM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote: > I would like to use 5 min in the opsawg slot for draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5066bis-01. > Is this still possible? Yup - we've got you in. Thanks, Melinda From kumar_wang@sina.com Fri Mar 8 21:53:54 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D388D21F8554 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 21:53:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_66=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yzlmCezD8YIC for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 21:53:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail228-180.sinamail.sina.com.cn (mail228-180.sinamail.sina.com.cn [60.28.228.180]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55E3121F8550 for ; Fri, 8 Mar 2013 21:53:51 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnMKAKU/KE+sEMmw/3poAIFflVYBhmeBNpM4jH8IhkqFDoELBIZOjg+KNg Received: from unknown (HELO webmail.sinamail.sina.com.cn) ([172.16.201.176]) by irtj11-93.sinamail.sina.com.cn with ESMTP; 09 Mar 2013 13:51:48 +0800 Received: by webmail.sinamail.sina.com.cn (Postfix, from userid 80) id 050475300A9; Sat, 9 Mar 2013 13:51:48 +0800 (CST) Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2013 13:51:47 +0800 Received: from kumar_wang@sina.com([123.118.172.163]) by m0.mail.sina.com.cn via HTTP; Sat, 09 Mar 2013 13:51:47 +0800 (CST) From: To: "opsawg" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MessageID: 1362808307.9983.27309 X-Originating-IP: [172.16.201.176] X-Mailer: Sina WebMail 4.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-sinamail_alt_23f4e82496599e13391be8bed87835de" Message-Id: <20130309055148.050475300A9@webmail.sinamail.sina.com.cn> Subject: [OPSAWG] comments to draft-zhang-opsawg-capwap-eap-00 X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: kumar_wang@sina.com List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2013 05:53:55 -0000 --=-sinamail_alt_23f4e82496599e13391be8bed87835de Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GBK Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline SGkgQWxsLApJIHJlYWQgdGhlIGRvY3VtZW50IGFuZCBmaW5kIHRoZSBzY2VuYXJpb3MgZGVzY3Jp YmVkIGFyZSBpbnRlcmVzdGluZy4gSSBoYXZlIGEgY2xhcmlmaWNhdGlvbiBxdWVzdGlvbiBmb3Ig dGhlIHNjZW5hcmlvIGRlcGljdGVkIGluIEZpZ3VyZS4yIG9mIHRoZSBkcmFmdC4gCkhvdyB0aGUg Y2Fwd2FwIG1lc3NhZ2VzIGNhbiBnbyB0aHJvdWdoIHRoZSBpbnRlcm5ldCB0byB0aGUgQUMgYmVm b3JlIGF1dGhlbnRpY2F0aW9uPyBCZWNhdXNlIHRoZSBhY2Nlc3Mgcm91dGVyIGlzIG9wZXJhdGVk IGJ5IGFub3RoZXIgb3BlcmF0b3IsIGRvZXMgdGhpcyBuZWVkIGFkZGl0aW9uYWwgY29uZmlndXJh dGlvbiBvbiB0aGUgYWNjZXNzIG5ldHdvcms/ClRoYW5rcy4KSGFvIFdhbmcNCiANCi0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLSBPcmlnaW5hbCAtLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0KCkRlYXIgQWxsLAoKTXkgY28t YXV0aG9yIGNvdWxkIG5vdCBwaW5nIHRoZSBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3Qgc3VjY2Vzc2Z1bGx5LCBzbyBJ IGFtCmZvcndhcmRpbmcgdGhlIG1lc3NhZ2UgYXMgYmVsb3cuCgpUaGFuayB5b3UgaW4gYWR2YW5j ZSBmb3IgaGVscCBjb21tZW50IGFuZCBkaXNjdXNzLgoKQmVzdCByZWdhcmRzLAp6aGVuCgotLS0t LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0gT3JpZ2luYWwgLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tCkZyb206IHpoYW5nciBh dCBnc3RhLmNvbQpEYXRlOiAyMDEzxOowM9TCMDbI1SAxMsqxMDm31gpUbzogb3BzYXdnPG9wc2F3 ZyBhdCBpZXRmLm9yZz4KU3ViamVjdDogQ2FsbCBmb3IgY29tbWVudDogZHJhZnQtemhhbmctb3Bz YXdnLWNhcHdhcC1lYXAtMDAKSGVsbG8gYWxsLgoKQWNjb3JkaW5nIHRvIGxhc3QgdGltZSB3b3Jr aW5nIGdyb3VwJ3MgZGlzY3Vzc2lvbiwgd2UgaGF2ZSB1cGRhdGVkIG91cgpkcmFmdCB3aXRoIG9w c2F3Zy4KClRoYW5rcyBmb3IgeW91ciBjb21tZW50cyBpbiBhZHZhbmNlCgpodHRwOi8vdG9vbHMu aWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9kcmFmdC16aGFuZy1vcHNhd2ctY2Fwd2FwLWVhcC0wMAoKQmVzdCByZWdh cmRzLApaaGFuZyBSb25nCkNoaW5hIFRlbGVjb20K --=-sinamail_alt_23f4e82496599e13391be8bed87835de Content-Type: text/html; charset=GBK Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline PERJVj5IaSBBbGwsPEJSPkkgcmVhZCB0aGUgZG9jdW1lbnQgYW5kIGZpbmQgdGhlIHNjZW5hcmlv cyBkZXNjcmliZWQgYXJlIGludGVyZXN0aW5nLiBJIGhhdmUgYSBjbGFyaWZpY2F0aW9uIHF1ZXN0 aW9uIGZvciB0aGUgc2NlbmFyaW8gZGVwaWN0ZWQgaW4gRmlndXJlLjIgb2YgdGhlIGRyYWZ0LiA8 QlI+SG93IHRoZSBjYXB3YXAgbWVzc2FnZXMgY2FuIGdvIHRocm91Z2ggdGhlIGludGVybmV0IHRv IHRoZSBBQyBiZWZvcmUgYXV0aGVudGljYXRpb24/IEJlY2F1c2UgdGhlIGFjY2VzcyByb3V0ZXIg aXMgb3BlcmF0ZWQgYnkgYW5vdGhlciBvcGVyYXRvciwgZG9lcyB0aGlzIG5lZWQgYWRkaXRpb25h bCBjb25maWd1cmF0aW9uIG9uIHRoZSBhY2Nlc3MgbmV0d29yaz88QlI+VGhhbmtzLjxCUj5IYW8g V2FuZzwvRElWPg0KPERJVj4mbmJzcDs8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+LS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tIE9y aWdpbmFsIC0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLTxCUj48QlI+RGVhciBBbGwsPEJSPjxCUj5NeSBjby1h dXRob3IgY291bGQgbm90IHBpbmcgdGhlIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdCBzdWNjZXNzZnVsbHksIHNvIEkg YW08QlI+Zm9yd2FyZGluZyB0aGUgbWVzc2FnZSBhcyBiZWxvdy48QlI+PEJSPlRoYW5rIHlvdSBp biBhZHZhbmNlIGZvciBoZWxwIGNvbW1lbnQgYW5kIGRpc2N1c3MuPEJSPjxCUj5CZXN0IHJlZ2Fy ZHMsPEJSPnpoZW48QlI+PEJSPi0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLSBPcmlnaW5hbCAtLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0tLS0tLS08QlI+RnJvbTogemhhbmdyIGF0IGdzdGEuY29tPEJSPkRhdGU6IDIwMTPE6jAz1MIw NsjVIDEyyrEwObfWPEJSPlRvOiBvcHNhd2cmbHQ7b3BzYXdnIGF0IGlldGYub3JnJmd0OzxCUj5T dWJqZWN0OiBDYWxsIGZvciBjb21tZW50OiBkcmFmdC16aGFuZy1vcHNhd2ctY2Fwd2FwLWVhcC0w MDxCUj5IZWxsbyBhbGwuPEJSPjxCUj5BY2NvcmRpbmcgdG8gbGFzdCB0aW1lIHdvcmtpbmcgZ3Jv dXAncyBkaXNjdXNzaW9uLCB3ZSBoYXZlIHVwZGF0ZWQgb3VyPEJSPmRyYWZ0IHdpdGggb3BzYXdn LjxCUj48QlI+VGhhbmtzIGZvciB5b3VyIGNvbW1lbnRzIGluIGFkdmFuY2U8QlI+PEJSPjxBIGhy ZWY9Imh0dHA6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9odG1sL2RyYWZ0LXpoYW5nLW9wc2F3Zy1jYXB3YXAt ZWFwLTAwIiByZWw9bm9mb2xsb3c+aHR0cDovL3Rvb2xzLmlldGYub3JnL2h0bWwvZHJhZnQtemhh bmctb3BzYXdnLWNhcHdhcC1lYXAtMDA8L0E+PEJSPjxCUj5CZXN0IHJlZ2FyZHMsPEJSPlpoYW5n IFJvbmc8QlI+Q2hpbmEgVGVsZWNvbTxCUj48L0RJVj4= --=-sinamail_alt_23f4e82496599e13391be8bed87835de-- From david.black@emc.com Sun Mar 10 11:37:57 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 801A721F891C for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 11:37:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ucNn5LES1NvZ for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 11:37:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mexforward.lss.emc.com (hop-nat-141.emc.com [168.159.213.141]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A796921F8916 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 11:37:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hop04-l1d11-si03.isus.emc.com (HOP04-L1D11-SI03.isus.emc.com [10.254.111.23]) by mexforward.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id r2AIbsnC022280 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 10 Mar 2013 14:37:54 -0400 Received: from mailhub.lss.emc.com (mailhubhoprd04.lss.emc.com [10.254.222.226]) by hop04-l1d11-si03.isus.emc.com (RSA Interceptor); Sun, 10 Mar 2013 14:37:41 -0400 Received: from mxhub36.corp.emc.com (mxhub36.corp.emc.com [10.254.93.84]) by mailhub.lss.emc.com (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.4.3) with ESMTP id r2AIbeZ5030127; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 14:37:40 -0400 Received: from mx15a.corp.emc.com ([169.254.1.118]) by mxhub36.corp.emc.com ([::1]) with mapi; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 14:37:40 -0400 From: "Black, David" To: "MacFaden, Michael (VMware)" , Juergen Schoenwaelder Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 14:37:38 -0400 Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] VMM-MIB joint proposal: Item 3 - VM-MIB paused != suspended Thread-Index: Ac4dvlb6lhOjs1oeSJacT6T06qjA6Q== Message-ID: <8D3D17ACE214DC429325B2B98F3AE71290DCD8AC@MX15A.corp.emc.com> References: <2055023019.666623.1362441871704.JavaMail.root@vmware.com> <1378131277.677263.1362443170838.JavaMail.root@vmware.com> <20130305112106.GB12453@elstar.local> <2057664860.2274702.1362642288213.JavaMail.root@vmware.com> <20130307082842.GA41504@elstar.local> <869034053.2650337.1362679755089.JavaMail.root@vmware.com> In-Reply-To: <869034053.2650337.1362679755089.JavaMail.root@vmware.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-EMM-MHVC: 1 Cc: opsawg Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] VMM-MIB joint proposal: Item 3 - VM-MIB paused != suspended X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 18:37:57 -0000 Would an "initializing" state for a VM that exists in the hypervisor but is= not completely set up (e.g., cannot be started, yet) be useful? This may be so= mewhat like "blocked", but it's a specific case that may be worth distinguishing b= ecause the available information about the VM may be incomplete. Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: opsawg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:opsawg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of > Michael MacFaden > Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 1:09 PM > To: Juergen Schoenwaelder > Cc: opsawg > Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] VMM-MIB joint proposal: Item 3 - VM-MIB paused !=3D > suspended >=20 > > OK. If we add an administrative suspend state, we likely also need a > > corresponding operational state, no? >=20 > Agreed. A VM would transition to paused(5) state imo. >=20 > VirtualMachineOperState ::=3D TEXTUAL-CONVENTION > STATUS current > DESCRIPTION > "The operational state of a virtual machine: >=20 > unknown(1) The state is unknown, e.g., because the > implementation failed to obtain the state > from the hypervisor. >=20 > other(2) The state has been obtained but it is > not a known state. >=20 > running(3) The virtual machine is currently running. >=20 > blocked(4) The virtual machine is currently blocked. >=20 > paused(5) The virtual machine is currently paused. >=20 > migrating(6) The virtual machine is currently > migrating. >=20 > shutdown(7) The virtual machine is currently in the > process of shutting down. >=20 > shutoff(8) The virtual machine is down. >=20 > crashed(9) The virtual machine has crashed." >=20 >=20 > Now if admin state is set to suspend, then the resting state of the VM > I believe should be shutoff(7) if operation was successful otherwise > the VM transitions to one of running, blocked, crashed, other, unknown. >=20 > Given suspend operations can take a long time some implementations > may report the transition to shutdown(7) before shutoff(7) while other > implementations will not. > Existing fielded IF-MIB implementations exhibit this behavior as well. > While IF-MIB module provides a rich set of states, many implementations > only use a subset. >=20 > Will send out more text to make explicit what we the designers > intend was for state transitions. >=20 > Mike MacFaden > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From denghui02@gmail.com Sun Mar 10 17:58:21 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DB6A21F88FC for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 17:58:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tmP9qNF4Snvy for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 17:58:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qe0-f51.google.com (mail-qe0-f51.google.com [209.85.128.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAF8B21F88F7 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 17:58:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qe0-f51.google.com with SMTP id nd7so1994048qeb.24 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 17:58:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=O4Ya95+LG/OXdr3GLCl2X8CQs7/naxNql+Nw6CSwruI=; b=XSmpJFwnLrEHmXpTCQ5ZbyZXYgHXQVK+lRAh4brWp5sboyMqxU2n6aKShiOE4EInQ7 HKouw1vk7RUmBpg5cE7cGAQd4dLuH9j0f0/4g7jAIb1ywMcWOKdf/bS9filChejsom8o AXRwR6Y6Ku4nZjzcy6/PlfE+qjHEqaE9uoK7j+EFJQmVWpdOhsH5nc3ftTEtGQxWipgL UNCK80mn/AMTpCo1mJqmRdXHh6bGk4lNJ3zegf6SlR4ghdLBFs0+qDN2c0EIBJsZJmGo 4FbaJDrF5IjUym1ltUGp3bjctGklc8sRAjZegoesNLGsY+8IwhJ4D5FW7ansqCWQ9Axj rlWg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.49.129.200 with SMTP id ny8mr16669263qeb.21.1362963500130; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 17:58:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.49.95.133 with HTTP; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 17:58:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5137847B.2060408@gmail.com> References: <5137847B.2060408@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 20:58:20 -0400 Message-ID: From: Hui Deng To: Melinda Shore , opsawg@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6da1d244862a04d79baba6 Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Agenda X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 00:58:21 -0000 --047d7b6da1d244862a04d79baba6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hello Melinda, Excuse me for late request, if time allows, can I ask 5 minutes to present the below draft? http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-shao-opsawg-capwap-hybridmac-00.txt thanks a lot for your help Best regards, -Hui 2013/3/6 Melinda Shore > A preliminary agenda for next week's meeting has been uploaded and > is available at > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/agenda/agenda-86-opsawg. > > If you've been given time on the agenda, please send your slides along > as soon as they're ready. And please, remember that the most > productive use of meeting time is to discuss issues that have > been raised on the mailing list or for which you'd like feedback from > working group participants. Please assume that we've already read > your draft and don't need to have it presented to us. > > Thanks, and see you next week, > > Melinda > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > --047d7b6da1d244862a04d79baba6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello Melinda,
=A0
Excuse me for late request, if = time allows, can I ask 5 minutes to present the below draft?
= http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-shao-opsawg-capwap-hybridmac-00.txt
=A0
thanks a lot for your help
Best regards,
=
=A0
-Hui

2013/3/6 Me= linda Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
A preliminary agenda for next week's meeting has been = uploaded and
is available at
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/86/agenda/agenda-86-opsawg.

If you've been given time on the agenda, please send your slides along<= br> as soon as they're ready. =A0And please, remember that the most
productive use of meeting time is to discuss issues that have
been raised on the mailing list or for which you'd like feedback from working group participants. =A0Please assume that we've already read your draft and don't need to have it presented to us.

Thanks, and see you next week,

Melinda
_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
= https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

--047d7b6da1d244862a04d79baba6-- From melinda.shore@gmail.com Sun Mar 10 18:02:04 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ADC121F88FC for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 18:02:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q5xWNpWG1PNJ for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 18:02:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-f45.google.com (mail-pb0-f45.google.com [209.85.160.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7213621F88C1 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 18:02:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pb0-f45.google.com with SMTP id ro8so3136862pbb.4 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 18:02:03 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=n2HUqZ/TwGEqI56fxTZA02d1yAb6XVi275h26pa1zjA=; b=WnnBzl5GqLpNj8qt+fRnscEIRY2CZt379vPAvSwnkYBIzr3Uy/hcphGY8XDZWfRIQf 3w1zD4ibwaVoHZwIsYZGkVe7wbv8TtvNjpZw+sZc1WGGpMzP+A93xyQENUB5oXvltVAi uVqqDPnW7j3YvJcv3oB7UBl8HpjYf4MG6tf+IUnOwvP/UNP3+bHXQvyspk/xmatrEXzu YBclMz2qcU5SUFEX985Qphqojpof6ZpDF2ot9rdV7URVJR28MQw0IQ2+QQ9vBNoCrqOm Jd/oj8yHp2iUxpwNNuV1kFfQjWrlPv8RQJ4JMd5I8EYj90ciOdG/qnOMA12Pu0JTv+u2 781A== X-Received: by 10.68.136.138 with SMTP id qa10mr23492729pbb.20.1362963723182; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 18:02:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:df8:0:128:75f4:19f:3eab:164a? ([2001:df8:0:128:75f4:19f:3eab:164a]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id mz8sm17749042pbc.9.2013.03.10.18.02.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 10 Mar 2013 18:02:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <513D2D05.6000700@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 17:01:57 -0800 From: Melinda Shore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: zhangr@gsta.com References: <513d2b21.43f5440a.037a.ffff88b8SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> In-Reply-To: <513d2b21.43f5440a.037a.ffff88b8SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dengui02@gmail.com, opsawg@ietf.org, caozhen@chinamobile.com Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Agenda X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 01:02:04 -0000 On 3/10/2013 4:53 PM, zhangr@gsta.com wrote: > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-zhang-opsawg-capwap-eap-00.txt Can someone explain the relationships among this, http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-shao-opsawg-capwap-hybridmac-00.txt, and https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-opsawg-capwap-extension? Is there a plan for the capwap extension work? Melinda From denghui02@gmail.com Sun Mar 10 18:13:19 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4E8821F8901 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 18:13:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cbQOsgKWIMjO for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 18:13:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qa0-f51.google.com (mail-qa0-f51.google.com [209.85.216.51]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D689521F88ED for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 18:13:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id cr7so724633qab.10 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 18:13:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=/sSMaaDscOuapLniD1OVGA5fYjN/JQLKU1TUFrfSe4E=; b=iC1rgJ/VGuR904gIflDw1l5AX6N46CVQG0lrqqIO+IIpZlc3wLRTqEL1hcInANagGJ itZJhRcuzhxbnaeTRcGCyotNFuFzzZ6+/FFk3VD2R1aCJ9B0lAQl6T8OA2pPg1+nb2mZ 3hD1WxH0f4D+amnGs0lMQbP1lX2SaiaYOUGWeDdrICHZqESwP/SmO6gMj+XI+6hIFzSs 8Sxh9rML+2pG7MsbAUVRePsSQUJQqFxzh105nNElvkrCO+N3plsfFYyDRIZgF6+Z8Nhx cyNSz+ju4zb+otbflhqbF4ME4sUPenzXSdayatfLwsaxCYLv93mx15FPIuQIz0BVK5/H DK+w== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.224.78.196 with SMTP id m4mr14667833qak.67.1362964398365; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 18:13:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.49.95.133 with HTTP; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 18:13:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <513D2D05.6000700@gmail.com> References: <513d2b21.43f5440a.037a.ffff88b8SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <513D2D05.6000700@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 21:13:18 -0400 Message-ID: From: Hui Deng To: Melinda Shore Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3074d4d2ce639704d79be01e Cc: opsawg@ietf.org, caozhen@chinamobile.com Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Agenda X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 01:13:19 -0000 --20cf3074d4d2ce639704d79be01e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Hi Melinda, According to the minutes of last IETF 85 meeting, http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/minutes/minutes-85-opsawg Background on CAPWAP and description of interoperability problems between access points and access controllers from different vendors, proposes EAP encapsulation in CAPWAP control plane. Asked that CAPWAP work be restarted in opsawg, specifically: 1) EAP encapsulation, 2) air interface management extension, and 3) BCP on local/split MAC (the latter may be an individual contribution). Discussion of whether or not this may be an IEEE liaison issue. Conclusion was that it's not, since CAPWAP is an IETF product and doesn't need a liaison from IEEE. Benoit encouraged a new draft with two distinct problems. We'd need to recharter to work on those, either restarting capwap or adding it to the opsawg charter so two distinct problems have been submited to 1) EAP encapsulation, http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-zhang-opsawg-capwap-eap-00.txt 2) air interface management extension https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-opsawg-capwap-extension? and 3) BCP on local/split MAC http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-shao-opsawg-capwap-hybridmac-00.txt, thanks a lot for your review. Best regards -Hui 2013/3/10 Melinda Shore > On 3/10/2013 4:53 PM, zhangr@gsta.com wrote: > > http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-zhang-opsawg-capwap-eap-00.txt > > Can someone explain the relationships among this, > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-shao-opsawg-capwap-hybridmac-00.txt, > and https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-opsawg-capwap-extension? > Is there a plan for the capwap extension work? > > Melinda > > > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > --20cf3074d4d2ce639704d79be01e Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Melinda,
=A0
According to the minutes of last I= ETF 85=A0meeting,
=A0
=A0=A0 Background on CAPWAP and description of interoper= ability
=A0=A0 problems between access points and access controllers
= =A0=A0 from different vendors, proposes EAP encapsulation in
=A0=A0 CAPW= AP control plane.=A0 Asked that CAPWAP work be
=A0=A0 restarted in opsawg, specifically: 1) EAP encapsulation,
=A0=A0 2= ) air interface management extension, and 3) BCP on
=A0=A0 local/split M= AC (the latter may be an individual
=A0=A0 contribution).=A0 Discussion = of whether or not this may be
=A0=A0 an IEEE liaison issue.=A0 Conclusion was that it's not,
=A0= =A0 since CAPWAP is an IETF product and doesn't need a
=A0=A0 liaiso= n from IEEE.=A0 Benoit encouraged a new draft with
=A0=A0 two distinct p= roblems.=A0 We'd need to recharter to work on
=A0=A0 those, either restarting capwap or adding it to the
=A0=A0 opsawg= charter
=A0
so two distinct problems have been submite= d to
1) EAP encapsulation,
http://www.ietf.org/id/dra= ft-zhang-opsawg-capwap-eap-00.txt
2) air interface management extension
and 3) BCP on local/split MAC
ht= tp://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-shao-opsawg-capwap-hybridmac-00.txt,
thanks a lot for your review.
Best regards
=A0
-Hui
=A0
2013/3/10 Melinda= Shore <melinda.shore@gmail.com>
On 3/10/2013 4:53 PM, z= hangr@gsta.com wrote:
> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-zhang-opsawg-capwap-eap-00= .txt

Can someone explain the relationships among this,
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-shao-opsawg-capwap-hyb= ridmac-00.txt,
and https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-chen-opsa= wg-capwap-extension?
Is there a plan for the capwap extension work?

Melinda


_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@ietf.org
= https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

--20cf3074d4d2ce639704d79be01e-- From melinda.shore@gmail.com Sun Mar 10 19:03:28 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6372021F8A14 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 19:03:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VQ9fyayWM5Ah for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 19:03:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-f45.google.com (mail-pb0-f45.google.com [209.85.160.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEDB921F898A for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 19:03:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pb0-f45.google.com with SMTP id ro8so3160843pbb.32 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 19:03:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=fVeWvK1RyjeCeh/ZHvSBOy/OhiwlOi+FRu/Ng8m6Bok=; b=u4/nf+JTfeBauv1mBq9lLpSvsksjNu5ToJccTKcXlxrgUZWwr4xSwXOXpEMd90/tDd z75eR72/EIw7o161PWqzJdyxXES1FGDiLnbhlQycgfktVfV2BAkHBWJBOvyT1UxZ/nlm olcT2aKypKyh+DxZukH/tKl3LOZXTixplqrHsJkYx1GMlkJXupCH3KWwHQOH9wCLWC5t wIp3cocQ9aAYI9qw44WGZO+lJWL/Ng4WcUdFVZJbWmv8OGMfEAiUsJnfaeXzhsiB3L1F brKkA3dqMBNJPMDEfsCTomGBXBBC+gIMrJ4ZaQ6B8KRdtNX1UPVRKJPCffKtEK1n3ki+ u9cw== X-Received: by 10.69.1.101 with SMTP id bf5mr23637728pbd.208.1362967407500; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 19:03:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:df8:0:128:649f:730a:d2fb:d001? ([2001:df8:0:128:649f:730a:d2fb:d001]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b9sm17947758pba.6.2013.03.10.19.03.24 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 10 Mar 2013 19:03:26 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <513D3B6A.8040307@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 18:03:22 -0800 From: Melinda Shore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hui Deng References: <513d2b21.43f5440a.037a.ffff88b8SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <513D2D05.6000700@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: opsawg@ietf.org, caozhen@chinamobile.com Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Agenda X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 02:03:28 -0000 On 3/10/2013 5:13 PM, Hui Deng wrote: > According to the minutes of last IETF 85 meeting, > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/minutes/minutes-85-opsawg Yes, but why are these being submitted separately, discussed separately, and requesting agenda time separately? Melinda From denghui02@gmail.com Sun Mar 10 20:37:13 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A6B121F86E3 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 20:37:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UpzyX1bdCbCE for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 20:37:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qc0-x22f.google.com (mail-qc0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B319321F866E for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 20:37:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-qc0-f175.google.com with SMTP id j3so1339810qcs.34 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 20:37:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=mnnRK1JHVx7KQkbruRO0GQhpWqiUWnFGY1bfSxYEAXQ=; b=NnfAg+NWB75tI7/veHmWlR8UVWW8Dtc+BsvMecKYi371TNUgbvf1Xcf1g16FsKxHhw glN1/caKaMLOF40GdLzalLCX37LJDF7yxYX1ZesXkUs2pX1flsFNQ2ALkOIAZlpnvDVn DTyPZAbd4vfEi0Lmv+y+KX+VeqdCKIIC1N+roD7PyZUgxGwObgg1JCzUzDfnGHRpUmEF uW+A62TuiW3zCl1t0qawwaLGZmmxfdy1dR+hhOpIYM95m0DYnGVhKf2BK3UPeCdNepiA Nm/eMRbVqO5cb4zYrglU8EVlc2HWSW2hBCXA+nJaY3HAWsCcZfQ9ENJb7wnKJcIiE5ke 9ttA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.49.24.45 with SMTP id r13mr17239638qef.3.1362973031998; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 20:37:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.49.95.133 with HTTP; Sun, 10 Mar 2013 20:37:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <513D3B6A.8040307@gmail.com> References: <513d2b21.43f5440a.037a.ffff88b8SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <513D2D05.6000700@gmail.com> <513D3B6A.8040307@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 23:37:11 -0400 Message-ID: From: Hui Deng To: Melinda Shore Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b33cb40692a5804d79de305 Cc: opsawg@ietf.org, caozhen@chinamobile.com Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] Agenda X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 03:37:13 -0000 --047d7b33cb40692a5804d79de305 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 This three are targeting different topics, this would be more clear for the readers. As you said, we can combine all three together for presentation, thanks a lot for your suggestion. -Hui 2013/3/10 Melinda Shore > On 3/10/2013 5:13 PM, Hui Deng wrote: > > According to the minutes of last IETF 85 meeting, > > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/minutes/minutes-85-opsawg > > Yes, but why are these being submitted separately, > discussed separately, and requesting agenda time > separately? > > Melinda > > > --047d7b33cb40692a5804d79de305 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This three are targeting different topics, this would be more clear fo= r the readers.
=A0
As you said, we can combine all thre= e together for presentation, thanks a lot for your suggestion.
= =A0
-Hui

2013/3/10 Melinda Shore <= span dir=3D"ltr"><melinda.shore@gmail.com>
On 3/10/2013 5:13 PM, Hui Deng wrote:
> According to the minutes of last IETF 85 meeting,
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/minutes/minutes-85-= opsawg

Yes, but why are these being submitted separately,
discussed separately, and requesting agenda time
separately?

Melinda



--047d7b33cb40692a5804d79de305-- From ietf@cdl.asgaard.org Mon Mar 11 09:33:35 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 204C211E812D for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 09:33:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b39UEXe7tK-O for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 09:33:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp4.emailarray.com (smtp4.emailarray.com [65.39.216.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 649E211E8129 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 09:33:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 3235 invoked by uid 89); 11 Mar 2013 16:33:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dhcp-6452.meeting.ietf.org) (Y2RsQGFzZ2FhcmQub3JnQDEzMC4xMjkuMTAwLjgy) (POLARISLOCAL) by smtp4.emailarray.com with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 11 Mar 2013 16:33:33 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) From: Christopher LILJENSTOLPE Resent-From: Christopher LILJENSTOLPE Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 08:38:09 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 09:33:31 -0700 Resent-To: "opsawg@ietf.org" Message-Id: <898A209E-8B14-4096-8583-316C4DBDBE0A@cdl.asgaard.org> To: "opsawg@ietf.org" , "ops-area@ietf.org" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) X-PolarisMail-Flags: Resent-Message-Id: <20130311163334.649E211E8129@ietfa.amsl.com> Subject: [OPSAWG] early volunteers requested for note takers and jabber scribes X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 16:33:35 -0000 Greetings all, We'd like to line up the volunteers for note takers and jabber = scribes for the joint meeting here in Orlando. Any takers? Christopher -- =20 =E6=9D=8E=E6=9F=AF=E7=9D=BF Check my PGP key here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc Current vCard here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.vcf Check my calendar availability: https://tungle.me/cdl From ietf@cdl.asgaard.org Mon Mar 11 11:03:35 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 072B311E81B9 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:03:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6aFGwP5VvlgO for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:03:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp2.emailarray.com (smtp.emailarray.com [69.28.212.198]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E755A11E81B8 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:03:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 89385 invoked by uid 89); 11 Mar 2013 18:03:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dhcp-6452.meeting.ietf.org) (Y2RsQGFzZ2FhcmQub3JnQDEzMC4xMjkuMTAwLjgy) (POLARISLOCAL) by smtp2.emailarray.com with (AES128-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 11 Mar 2013 18:03:32 -0000 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_AD100C97-F89F-4A3D-B3EA-6090BB22291E"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) From: Christopher LILJENSTOLPE In-Reply-To: <513E122A.8080005@bwijnen.net> Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:03:23 -0700 Message-Id: References: <898A209E-8B14-4096-8583-316C4DBDBE0A@cdl.asgaard.org> <513E122A.8080005@bwijnen.net> To: "Bert Wijnen \(IETF\)" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) X-PolarisMail-Flags: x Cc: "opsawg@ietf.org" , "ops-area@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] early volunteers requested for note takers and jabber scribes X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:03:35 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_AD100C97-F89F-4A3D-B3EA-6090BB22291E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Greetings, Thank you Bert! Christopher On 11Mar2013, at 10.19, "Bert Wijnen \(IETF\)" = wrote: > I can do jabber >=20 >=20 > Bert Wijnen >=20 > On 3/11/13 11:38 AM, Christopher LILJENSTOLPE wrote: >> Greetings all, >>=20 >> We'd like to line up the volunteers for note takers and jabber = scribes for the joint meeting here in Orlando. Any takers? >>=20 >> Christopher >>=20 >> -- >> =E6=9D=8E=E6=9F=AF=E7=9D=BF >> Check my PGP key here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc >> Current vCard here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.vcf >> Check my calendar availability: https://tungle.me/cdl >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> OPSAWG mailing list >> OPSAWG@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg >>=20 -- =20 =E6=9D=8E=E6=9F=AF=E7=9D=BF Check my PGP key here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.asc Current vCard here: https://www.asgaard.org/~cdl/cdl.vcf Check my calendar availability: https://tungle.me/cdl --Apple-Mail=_AD100C97-F89F-4A3D-B3EA-6090BB22291E Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.19 (Darwin) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRPhxyAAoJEGmx2Mt/+Iw/7D8H/3P243zUUGIjuI7TvSMgWw5o vSrRzXWNqH8dxVG2LbmVM/xUi8VSsPi7KpLe54OBkfq4+ImWVdO5X39L+IizVLcC YjuNuBhL29FQp/e1B3KJZWC2qeXw+FfcpfkUkWKRn3/deztp87wcWjEyUGYFKCzL 5zce3rUJk2lu0d3XzG5xxguaestH7HKoKrcQ2VayqPoGS6m+FdPNFePVm3RODyGu PVfSvwMYUkGtMoEAx6JhyoQwGcw8NRArfpxTk5OnDzzROMYRLK+Pl4jHm3YYiC17 EgX4MXpKmnKhMozjvQwelyfHCwaNgwbpGNS7e48Z2Qi/8KhtGVCrf+1wpJw5XVM= =wZbR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_AD100C97-F89F-4A3D-B3EA-6090BB22291E-- From victor@jvknet.com Wed Mar 13 10:52:08 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 557BB21F8E06 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:52:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.202 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v8f0azNXNzua for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:52:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-f52.google.com (mail-pb0-f52.google.com [209.85.160.52]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91D7A21F8DB9 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:52:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pb0-f52.google.com with SMTP id ma3so1271211pbc.11 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:52:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:user-agent:date:subject:from:to:message-id:thread-topic :mime-version:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=swTHnisbSa9munOQwUbfhfRNuzC8uf0oOfzSsW+SnKw=; b=aUdXzcoxiRSECvo29taF6ZYbw2XwBAneOpEspomnhh3go0BFUT/CcxZpUVeRWeQ9Xm J5KnwK5N4ujIwViKWZoPwtHwTEtZ2lUUCzYhieUqczXpm98D605Z0vENcatfloUz9k5v MNCU01OGgMdpDiVzuoRVpuJ6SdDVE0T0gDrL7Xzh+4NhQY1hP2zfUwRqsqxxTwFf3kmx vG1oRBqJMOmDKVzfbwJgnmWMZaLC5+6/YLcZ4OXREDts1qRiX5dc/jqL5ANJSDx/PWHc CZCDUgMcvqONkQu36rfMxH0Y4LA6IWI/TSctDYzmzqk6QiRfBTuwtfnHpTSphbOp9X1g ZNDQ== X-Received: by 10.68.194.8 with SMTP id hs8mr24987186pbc.44.1363197126630; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:52:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [130.129.16.166] (dhcp-10a6.meeting.ietf.org. [130.129.16.166]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 1sm30532275pba.32.2013.03.13.10.52.04 (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:52:05 -0700 (PDT) User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.10.0.110310 Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 13:51:42 -0400 From: Victor Kuarsingh To: "opsawg@ietf.org" Message-ID: Thread-Topic: CGN Deployment with BGP/MPLS IP VPNs Daft Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3446027524_3653016" X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkmkUUP6yUBZAt8v/R4JAsZZn1z1uZyz1FblmyB8X9fGrwHKTtKEMx7X34GfEPGXg3eOQjV Subject: [OPSAWG] CGN Deployment with BGP/MPLS IP VPNs Daft X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 17:52:08 -0000 > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3446027524_3653016 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable OPSAWG, I will be soliciting input and feedback following an update to the =AD02 version of this document (Multicast Considerations section to be added). I have received considerable feedback in person and on the side. I have aske= d those individuals to make sure those comments are posted this list to provide the group a sense of the overall support for the document. Any comments on the current =AD02 version (notwithstanding the upcoming M-cas= t section) is certainly welcome. Regards, Victor K --B_3446027524_3653016 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
OPSAWG,

<= /div>
I will be soliciting input and feedback following an update to the= –02 version of this document (Multicast Considerations section to be = added).  I have received considerable feedback in person and on the sid= e.  I have asked those individuals to make sure those comments are post= ed this list to provide the group a sense of the overall support for the doc= ument.

Any comments on the current –02 versio= n (notwithstanding the upcoming M-cast section) is certainly welcome.
<= div>
Regards,

Victor K

--B_3446027524_3653016-- From melinda.shore@gmail.com Wed Mar 13 12:52:17 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AAC221F8E12 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:52:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.724 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.724 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.125, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n2EP+mmAfl4z for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:52:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 760E321F8DC9 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:52:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pb0-f44.google.com with SMTP id wz12so1360720pbc.31 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:52:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=srfXR3piBfNU/3pa8tX5x9++xWxbdPS2C6dKiA0g6cM=; b=lPUvFsYK8PIhxbZVbI4BuaXBJvCfVDUGKkWKNN3Ujr2dpM0vppKoS+wwnHnVUrETAs /flB3qLckrYoDeJVBX5cBU3qkMVs9cRu0A+MFxoTY/h9Ric5ydOe6fb7GWVoO9z9pICi 0EhTEXyw0SdJq5qaOEPWmjoQz0fuNWJST+CrTps5yErUPlyOarid0R8cQIMMBXYSLsAn /xQ3Dmn+zKvYNIFBR1tVmPmbvyN4AiUttUgI6pVwFE+qy6tYAayLYcUR3KuiK0vaLCkY DNfhquHm0O1K21y/ItXWoE9ZOO6urDU2fyA0YwmRTcpnXbtPcj39x8YbViftVBU/1EZH QMow== X-Received: by 10.68.204.164 with SMTP id kz4mr40559114pbc.158.1363204336111; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:52:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:df8:0:16:9163:bad4:24b:9f40? ([2001:df8:0:16:9163:bad4:24b:9f40]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ou3sm30925262pbc.7.2013.03.13.12.52.13 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:52:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5140D8E9.2090103@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:52:09 -0800 From: Melinda Shore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: opsawg@ietf.org References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] CGN Deployment with BGP/MPLS IP VPNs Daft X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:52:17 -0000 On 3/13/2013 9:51 AM, Victor Kuarsingh wrote: > Any comments on the current –02 version (notwithstanding the upcoming > M-cast section) is certainly welcome. Note that this document is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployment/ Please take a look at the document and post comments to the mailing list. Note that it cannot go into working group last call without prior working group review. Thanks, Melinda From owen@delong.com Wed Mar 13 14:35:59 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A77821F8AB0 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:35:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.539 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zGr7C7D30zdS for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:35:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from owen.delong.com (owen.delong.com [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E58E21F8A43 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:35:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.255.251.216] (kiwi.he.net [216.218.252.66]) (authenticated bits=0) by owen.delong.com (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id r2DLZHOB018271 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:35:28 -0700 X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.3 owen.delong.com r2DLZHOB018271 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=delong.com; s=mail; t=1363210528; bh=uh5MTch3Us8bk8Aye88g02hu9uM=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To; b=VjblVaPqsZZ8Hw7aZdDMsaop20CRAhD1BuOxirL0xxHF1Ibl4h83zzdNX4S/CHeK2 /q8+lP8I+R1Polnvo1nR+X3FQcYllg6Hv6VrtuEBx4ldLLQYDoHsCXwX2EbRDiCstD 0uK8fsp4e4hS7ymezf6/Dv3evkqWU2lUzbt04Vaw= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) From: Owen DeLong In-Reply-To: <5140D8E9.2090103@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:35:20 -0700 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <284D14E9-506E-41EE-B9BC-FDFCA45EEB35@delong.com> References: <5140D8E9.2090103@gmail.com> To: Melinda Shore X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0rc1 (owen.delong.com [192.159.10.2]); Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:35:28 -0700 (PDT) Cc: opsawg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] CGN Deployment with BGP/MPLS IP VPNs Daft X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:35:59 -0000 I love the subject line, though I suspect you meant Draft. Owen On Mar 13, 2013, at 12:52 PM, Melinda Shore = wrote: > On 3/13/2013 9:51 AM, Victor Kuarsingh wrote: >> Any comments on the current =9602 version (notwithstanding the = upcoming >> M-cast section) is certainly welcome. >=20 > Note that this document is: > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployment/ >=20 > Please take a look at the document and post comments to the > mailing list. Note that it cannot go into working group last > call without prior working group review. >=20 > Thanks, >=20 > Melinda >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From kaname@nttv6.jp Wed Mar 13 15:02:04 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A71BB21F8A6E for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:02:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WekhQXFPsz9B for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:02:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from guri.nttv6.jp (guri.nttv6.jp [IPv6:2402:c800:ff06:144::148]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1ED2E21F89CB for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:02:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from z.nttv6.jp (z.nttv6.jp [IPv6:2402:c800:ff06:208::212]) by guri.nttv6.jp (NTTv6MTA) with ESMTP id 2387FBDC21 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:02:03 +0900 (JST) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (fujiko.nttv6.jp [IPv6:2402:c800:ff06:136::141]) by z.nttv6.jp (NTTv6MTA) with ESMTP id 1B256E11EF for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:02:01 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <5140F755.8090809@nttv6.jp> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 07:01:57 +0900 From: kaname nishizuka User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: opsawg@ietf.org References: <5140D8E9.2090103@gmail.com> <284D14E9-506E-41EE-B9BC-FDFCA45EEB35@delong.com> In-Reply-To: <284D14E9-506E-41EE-B9BC-FDFCA45EEB35@delong.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] CGN Deployment with BGP/MPLS IP VPNs Draft X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 22:02:05 -0000 I'm kaname from NTT communications in Japan. I'm one of them who did a supportive feedback to Victor in person. We are testing CGNs under support of Japanese Gov. and found the same issues. Now we are writing a report about "How-to" of deploying CGN in existing NW. The issuse of separating CGN flow from non-CGN flow and many other issues are addressed in that report. It will be available on the end of March in English. I will announce it when it's available to this mailling-list. Anyway, I appreciate the draft. thanks, Kaname (2013/03/14 6:35), Owen DeLong wrote: > I love the subject line, though I suspect you meant Draft. > > Owen > > On Mar 13, 2013, at 12:52 PM, Melinda Shore wrote: > >> On 3/13/2013 9:51 AM, Victor Kuarsingh wrote: >>> Any comments on the current –02 version (notwithstanding the upcoming >>> M-cast section) is certainly welcome. >> Note that this document is: >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployment/ >> >> Please take a look at the document and post comments to the >> mailing list. Note that it cannot go into working group last >> call without prior working group review. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Melinda >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OPSAWG mailing list >> OPSAWG@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg -- ---- Kaname Nishizuka Innovative Architecture Center NTT Communications Corporation +81-50-3812-4704 From vicmank@rogers.com Wed Mar 13 10:50:47 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ED4D21F8DB9 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:50:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.202 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.202 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id t5-TIpUX3trp for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:50:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm15.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com (nm15.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com [98.139.44.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B388421F8DB6 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 10:50:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [98.139.44.102] by nm15.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 13 Mar 2013 17:50:36 -0000 Received: from [67.195.22.106] by tm7.access.bullet.mail.sp2.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 13 Mar 2013 17:50:36 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp102.rog.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 13 Mar 2013 17:50:36 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rogers.com; s=s1024; t=1363197036; bh=B++9Hhg++UNyyOAA+NY6tXFdzdew6OqX+aTtUq74/sk=; h=X-Yahoo-Newman-Id:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:X-YMail-OSG:X-Yahoo-SMTP:Received:User-Agent:Date:Subject:From:To:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:Mime-version:Content-type; b=vkTYwPN1MsZSgL+MUpLbCh4dR2py5j8kaWtrQ0prg2ybIpiNhjO9tuxs7G7BSwA6iX6OyAVlhHX6WNBJmqNVQKSB546Tlonnj5D4v9ulJuFRb36vDuGxPoWjOSNhLBaWEX46uivIxLdg/C5UutzT4hzysXj26j9wH1msi0hnzOY= X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 270369.93267.bm@smtp102.rog.mail.gq1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: rDonE7kVM1ld7h9j94TtagfwL4Z5ff0AwL5XuhTloopcZdl GBa_tUBu.XljLCP5IN3Q8wKVRDuVCCX9y97AOTuGt.1OQPhgCA8IgdabXWtl pf.fRCZJ6oetda4mTXlE2lx6HX5OXCH3XUTjyWwS4iRCLLNyGDpmKCXSce10 mXRMLAqnqFaOUNpwLa8QtDunxYCsp5FGZThJmJj1MVK22_HcEY7A7IU5.7t4 rrLczTmOgp5dNGe8O9a.v2ypIxCHDOgdTgI.j5Cy0_5CgLhxQaBmZKvy7d1x 97tdn62Sb9uK9Njq40g2TKpZjYGe36rApIYdOsiuui45M26lRADeTEdPpQgs bHeEmcFC1qBR8.tdvGEaocaFgAbXgNUTkgatkkCrbXpzY8LXwI34jmqTdp0s GhqdxezPnf1cBFuYOwbxOXQL9xJjZRpACTWC_0XTl_Goh6tA7Kq8tFwGPUfA K_hzPerc4xLHG46_S3HTZo.U- X-Yahoo-SMTP: f9g07a.swBDGzI9q2Xty6cZwEaZpJ.WouSaMcQ-- Received: from [130.129.16.166] (vicmank@130.129.16.166 with login) by smtp102.rog.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Mar 2013 17:50:36 +0000 UTC User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.10.0.110310 Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 13:50:33 -0400 From: Victor Kuarsingh To: Message-ID: Thread-Topic: CGN Deployment with BGP/MPLS IP VPNs Daft Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3446027435_3666719" X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:05:41 -0700 Subject: [OPSAWG] CGN Deployment with BGP/MPLS IP VPNs Daft X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 17:50:47 -0000 > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. --B_3446027435_3666719 Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable OPSAWG, I will be soliciting input and feedback following an update to the =AD02 version of this document (Multicast Considerations section to be added). I have received considerable feedback in person and on the side. I have aske= d those individuals to make sure those comments are posted this list to provide the group a sense of the overall support for the document. Any comments on the current =AD02 version (notwithstanding the upcoming M-cas= t section) is certainly welcome. Regards, Victor K --B_3446027435_3666719 Content-type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
OPSAWG,

=
I will be soliciting input and feedback following an update to the R= 11;02 version of this document (Multicast Considerations section to be added= ).  I have received considerable feedback in person and on the side. &n= bsp;I have asked those individuals to make sure those comments are posted th= is list to provide the group a sense of the overall support for the document= .

Any comments on the current –02 version (no= twithstanding the upcoming M-cast section) is certainly welcome.
<= br>
Regards,

Victor K

--B_3446027435_3666719-- From bclaise@cisco.com Sat Mar 16 11:32:06 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6206D21F8895; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 11:32:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.625 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.625 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.282, BAYES_00=-2.599, FU_ENDS_2_WRDS=0.255, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d6eSt2tdNcsk; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 11:32:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (av-tac-rtp.cisco.com [64.102.19.209]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A336621F888B; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 11:32:05 -0700 (PDT) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from rooster.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r2GIW1sp016445; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 14:32:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [10.82.216.143] (rtp-vpn3-143.cisco.com [10.82.216.143]) by rooster.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r2GIVvbX027777; Sat, 16 Mar 2013 14:31:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <5144BA8D.1010704@cisco.com> Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 19:31:41 +0100 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130215 Thunderbird/17.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Glenn Parsons References: <2BBEF519D867E04EA729626C246A97870C06C9@eusaamb101.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <2BBEF519D867E04EA729626C246A97870C06C9@eusaamb101.ericsson.se> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030509010706080708040600" Cc: Pat Thaler , Chris Liljenstolpe , "opsawg@ietf.org" , "ops-area@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] RFC on random MAC address assignment X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 18:32:07 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030509010706080708040600 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear all, This following question came up during the draft-ieee-rac-oui-restructuring presentation at the OPSAWG/OPSAREA meeting. Would someone know this reference below? Regards, Benoit. > Chris, > Can you provide us a pointer to the random MAC address assignment RFC > that was mentioned in the INTAREA discussion today? > Thanks, > Glenn. > > > > *GLENN PARSONS * > *Standards Advisor* > > Ericsson Canada > 3500 Carling Avenue > Ottawa, ON K2H 8E9, Canada > Phone +1 613 667 1569 > Mobile +1 613 796 9407 > glenn.parsons@ericsson.com > _www.ericsson.com_ > > > > > > This Communication is Confidential. We only send and receive email on > the basis of the terms set out at _www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer_ > --------------030509010706080708040600 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="------------020506040905080900060409" --------------020506040905080900060409 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear all,

This following question came up during the draft-ieee-rac-oui-restructuring presentation at the OPSAWG/OPSAREA meeting.
Would someone know this reference below?

Regards, Benoit.
Chris,
 
Can you provide us a pointer to the random MAC address assignment RFC that was mentioned in the INTAREA discussion today?
 
Thanks,
Glenn.
 



GLENN PARSONS
Standards Advisor

Ericsson Canada
3500 Carling Avenue
Ottawa, ON K2H 8E9, Canada
Phone +1 613 667 1569
Mobile +1 613 796 9407
glenn.parsons@ericsson.com
www.ericsson.com





This Communication is Confidential. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer
 
 

--------------020506040905080900060409 Content-Type: image/jpeg Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: /9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQEAYABgAAD/2wBDAAgGBgcGBQgHBwcJCQgKDBQNDAsLDBkSEw8UHRof Hh0aHBwgJC4nICIsIxwcKDcpLDAxNDQ0Hyc5PTgyPC4zNDL/2wBDAQkJCQwLDBgNDRgyIRwh MjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjL/wAAR CAADAP8DASIAAhEBAxEB/8QAHwAAAQUBAQEBAQEAAAAAAAAAAAECAwQFBgcICQoL/8QAtRAA AgEDAwIEAwUFBAQAAAF9AQIDAAQRBRIhMUEGE1FhByJxFDKBkaEII0KxwRVS0fAkM2JyggkK FhcYGRolJicoKSo0NTY3ODk6Q0RFRkdISUpTVFVWV1hZWmNkZWZnaGlqc3R1dnd4eXqDhIWG h4iJipKTlJWWl5iZmqKjpKWmp6ipqrKztLW2t7i5usLDxMXGx8jJytLT1NXW19jZ2uHi4+Tl 5ufo6erx8vP09fb3+Pn6/8QAHwEAAwEBAQEBAQEBAQAAAAAAAAECAwQFBgcICQoL/8QAtREA AgECBAQDBAcFBAQAAQJ3AAECAxEEBSExBhJBUQdhcRMiMoEIFEKRobHBCSMzUvAVYnLRChYk NOEl8RcYGRomJygpKjU2Nzg5OkNERUZHSElKU1RVVldYWVpjZGVmZ2hpanN0dXZ3eHl6goOE hYaHiImKkpOUlZaXmJmaoqOkpaanqKmqsrO0tba3uLm6wsPExcbHyMnK0tPU1dbX2Nna4uPk 5ebn6Onq8vP09fb3+Pn6/9oADAMBAAIRAxEAPwD0DxiMawTzyg7+1cvJRRXwWN/3yp6sxqFa SqslFFa0Tz6hVkqrJRRXp0jgqFaSqzdaKK9OkefUG0UUV30zEWloortpiCloorupiCloortp gRNUL0UVqbwIHqBqKKR2QIGqB6KKR2QIGqFutFFI7KYoqQUUVjI9XDkgqQUUVzTPaw5ItSLR RXNI9vDki16n8FEB1XVXyciBB9445Y9unb/OaKK5Zm2Z/wC4VPl+aP/Z --------------020506040905080900060409 Content-Type: image/jpeg Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: /9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQEAYABgAAD/2wBDAAgGBgcGBQgHBwcJCQgKDBQNDAsLDBkSEw8UHRof Hh0aHBwgJC4nICIsIxwcKDcpLDAxNDQ0Hyc5PTgyPC4zNDL/2wBDAQkJCQwLDBgNDRgyIRwh MjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjL/wAAR CABRAfQDASIAAhEBAxEB/8QAHwAAAQUBAQEBAQEAAAAAAAAAAAECAwQFBgcICQoL/8QAtRAA AgEDAwIEAwUFBAQAAAF9AQIDAAQRBRIhMUEGE1FhByJxFDKBkaEII0KxwRVS0fAkM2JyggkK FhcYGRolJicoKSo0NTY3ODk6Q0RFRkdISUpTVFVWV1hZWmNkZWZnaGlqc3R1dnd4eXqDhIWG h4iJipKTlJWWl5iZmqKjpKWmp6ipqrKztLW2t7i5usLDxMXGx8jJytLT1NXW19jZ2uHi4+Tl 5ufo6erx8vP09fb3+Pn6/8QAHwEAAwEBAQEBAQEBAQAAAAAAAAECAwQFBgcICQoL/8QAtREA AgECBAQDBAcFBAQAAQJ3AAECAxEEBSExBhJBUQdhcRMiMoEIFEKRobHBCSMzUvAVYnLRChYk NOEl8RcYGRomJygpKjU2Nzg5OkNERUZHSElKU1RVVldYWVpjZGVmZ2hpanN0dXZ3eHl6goOE hYaHiImKkpOUlZaXmJmaoqOkpaanqKmqsrO0tba3uLm6wsPExcbHyMnK0tPU1dbX2Nna4uPk 5ebn6Onq8vP09fb3+Pn6/9oADAMBAAIRAxEAPwDz6TVNQErj7fdfeP8Ay2b/ABpv9q6h/wA/ 91/3+b/Gq0v+uf8A3jTK96yPLuy5/amof8/91/3+b/Gj+1NR/wCf+6/7/N/jS6XpV9reoxaf p1u091Lnai8cDqSewHrXqehfAu5k2y67qawr1MFoNzfQuePyBrOdSnT+IuEJy2PKv7V1DIH2 +6yeAPObn9ac2pamjlHvLxGHVWkYEfga+kbXw74J8CWwuXisrRgP+Pi7cNI30Lc/lXj/AMVP FWjeKdZtJNHUyLbxsklyU2+YSeAM8kDB596zp1lUlaMdO5c6XJG7epxv9qah/wA/91/3+b/G j+1NQ/5/7r/v83+NVKK6LIxuz638LMz+EdFZmLMbCAkk5JPlrWtWR4V/5E/RP+vCD/0Wta9e HL4menHZBRRRUjCiiigAooooAKKKKACiiigAooooAKKKKACiiigAooooAKKKKACiiigAoooo AKKKKACiiigAooooAKKKKACiiigAooooAKKKKACiiigAooooAKKKKACiiigAooooAKKKKACi iigAooooA+NJf9c/+8abTpf9c/8AvGm1755Ru+DdZ1HQfE9reaVafbLo5iFsFJMgbqBjn3z7 V7asfxH8TKPMks/DNm3UIPOuCP5CvFfBXiP/AIRXxRb6obU3ShWiaJfvENx8vvXtS+JfHHiR QNB8PJpNqw/4/NVb5seqxjn864sSnzXSXqzqotctrlux+GvhvTZDqGrvLqt0vLXWqTbwPfB4 FeU/Fi78NXWu2v8Awjwti6Rst09qoEZORtHHBI56V6dF8Mv7SlW48W67fa1IOfIL+VAPoq9v yrzD4r6N4d0XW7SDQRFE5iP2m3hfcsZB+U+xPPHtUYdp1NZNv8CqqahtY4Cloor0DjPrbwr/ AMifon/XhB/6LWtesjwr/wAifon/AF4Qf+i1rXrwpfEz1I7IKKKKkYUUUUAFFFFABRRRQAUU UUAFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFFFFA BRRRQAUUUUAFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFFFFAHxpL/rX/AN402rNvatfarDZx sFe4nESs3QFmwM/nXWTfDe6j1y20dNZsZbyeZoSqxyARlVLEkkYI+XHHrXuOcY6M8xRb2M7w Hrth4b8XWup6jA0tsispKruMZIwHA74/rXp2ufHPT4A0eh6fLdv2muP3afl94/pXnz/Dm/Es Ai1Kxngnt57iOdN4BEON6lSAQeeDVa48EzWVpbfbdX0+31K6jSWHTXLGVgxwoJAwpOehrGca NSXMzWLqRVkJrnxC8T+INyXWpyQwN/ywtf3S/jjk/ia5eu2f4bXg15NGj1aykvQjSXCeXIvk KoBJ5HzjkD5e9VLfwT5/224Ou2EOl2jpE9/Kkiq0jdECEbsjIznpmtIzpxXukOM29TlaK7Kb 4Z65BY6xcs9uzaWRvjQljKpUNuQ9xtOfwNc/r+iz+HtYl024ljlljRHLx52kMoYdfrVRqRk7 JkuElqz6k8K/8ifon/XhB/6LWtesjwr/AMifon/XhB/6LWtevFl8TPSjsgoooqRhRRRQAUUU UAFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFFFFAB RRRQAUUUUAFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAfHtpdfYdZt7zZv +z3Cy7M43bWzj9K7y6+KMVxr9lqw0/UCba4afyJr/fH8yMuFXbhfvV51L/rn/wB402vclTjL VnmRm46I7sfEmSZ7W5v7GS5vobS5s2uDMAZElPy5GOq/rVDU/FOk67BBcarosz6vFAkBuoLs okgXozLjg49K5OkpKlBaoftJPc9AuviJaXSabbmy1UQWLvIk51DN0GIwAJMfdA7HOePSk1H4 jWmuG+tdX0RptMuWikWOK42yq8YxuL4w24cGuBopexh2H7WR6BJ8VLxrh7iOwWNzfRXCKsmV EKR+X5R45yCeffpXMeK9dXxL4judWS2+zLMqKId27aFUDr+FY1FONKMXdITnKSsz628K/wDI n6J/14Qf+i1rXrI8K/8AIn6J/wBeEH/ota168aXxM9GOyCiiipGFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFFFFA BRRRQAUUUUAFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFFFFABRRRQAUU UUAFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFFFFABRRRQB8aS/65/wDeNNp0v+tf/eNNr3zy gooooAKKKKACkpaKAPrbwr/yJ+if9eEH/ota16yPCv8AyJ+if9eEH/ota168KXxM9SOyCiii pGFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFFFFAB RRRQAUUUUAFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFFFFABRRRQB8ky f61/9402iivbPMCiiigAooooAKDRRQB9R+Gf+RU0f/rxh/8AQBWrRRXiy3Z6S2CiiikMKKKK ACiiigAooooAKKKKACiiigAooooAKKKKACiiigAooooAKKKKACiiigAooooAKKKKACiiigAo oooAKKKKACiiigAooooAKKKKACiiigAooooAKKKKACiiigAooooAKKKKACiiigD/2Q== --------------020506040905080900060409-- --------------030509010706080708040600-- From sob@harvard.edu Sun Mar 17 13:13:53 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38A1221F8414; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 13:13:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l5lEgG5r1cPo; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 13:13:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ackroyd.harvard.edu (ackroyd.harvard.edu [128.103.208.29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA33521F83E1; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 13:13:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exchange.university.harvard.edu (entwedge0000001.university.harvard.edu [10.35.2.152]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ackroyd.harvard.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6289CE931A; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 16:13:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ENTWCASX0000010.university.harvard.edu (192.168.236.50) by ENTWEDGE0000001.university.harvard.edu (10.35.2.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.342.3; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 16:13:17 -0400 Received: from ENTWEXMB0000008.university.harvard.edu ([169.254.1.26]) by ENTWCASX0000010.university.harvard.edu ([::1]) with mapi id 14.02.0342.003; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 16:13:52 -0400 From: "Bradner, Scott" To: Benoit Claise Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] RFC on random MAC address assignment Thread-Index: AQHOI0vwW/vZ/x1jIk6Vw1G7l2R7DQ== Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 20:13:50 +0000 Message-ID: References: <2BBEF519D867E04EA729626C246A97870C06C9@eusaamb101.ericsson.se> <5144BA8D.1010704@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <5144BA8D.1010704@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [173.166.5.69] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Pat Thaler , Chris Liljenstolpe , "opsawg@ietf.org" , "ops-area@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] RFC on random MAC address assignment X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 20:13:53 -0000 RFC 4941? Scott On Mar 16, 2013, at 2:31 PM, Benoit Claise wrote: > Dear all, >=20 > This following question came up during the draft-ieee-rac-oui-restructuri= ng presentation at the OPSAWG/OPSAREA meeting. > Would someone know this reference below? >=20 > Regards, Benoit. >> Chris, >> =20 >> Can you provide us a pointer to the random MAC address assignment RFC th= at was mentioned in the INTAREA discussion today? >> =20 >> Thanks, >> Glenn. >> =20 >>=20 >> =20 >>=20 >> GLENN PARSONS=20 >> Standards Advisor >>=20 >> Ericsson Canada >> 3500 Carling Avenue >> Ottawa, ON K2H 8E9, Canada >> Phone +1 613 667 1569 >> Mobile +1 613 796 9407 >> glenn.parsons@ericsson.com >> www.ericsson.com >>=20 >>=20 >> >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> This Communication is Confidential. We only send and receive email on th= e basis of the terms set out at www.ericsson.com/email_disclaimer >> =20 >> =20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > OPSAWG mailing list > OPSAWG@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg From shtsuchi@cisco.com Mon Mar 18 01:17:23 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C970421F88EA; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 01:17:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.799 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.600, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_24=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_35=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_43=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_53=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w21R7OPDfesT; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 01:17:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bgl-iport-2.cisco.com (bgl-iport-2.cisco.com [72.163.197.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AABEC21F88D8; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 01:17:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2693; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1363594642; x=1364804242; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=WHKtZJJyn2OdWS2NvI8VZmRPktPEk+mjsAIxFjsIh+I=; b=m79TN1OIT40NqcNpyjG3AHezDIEIuhntPwMR0OrwVKzMX0iDJ4PIbJpC Qr2T3cEQ/f5R/gwJiHwczFUqcrdsDXtRMK1kBDIKjjtDSEIdc2dKbWeaZ rL01w3bUzRKZ4bUEx+IsJciA+9Y94cCWG9DajTP6ilwxGVGpHiT9Dtsje Y=; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,863,1355097600"; d="scan'208";a="27727463" Received: from vla196-nat.cisco.com (HELO bgl-core-4.cisco.com) ([72.163.197.24]) by bgl-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Mar 2013 08:17:16 +0000 Received: from dhcp-10-141-41-17.cisco.com (dhcp-10-141-41-17.cisco.com [10.141.41.17]) by bgl-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r2I8HFtf014804; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 08:17:15 GMT Message-ID: <5146CD8B.3030108@cisco.com> Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 17:17:15 +0900 From: Shishio Tsuchiya User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130307 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: opsawg@ietf.org, pcp@ietf.org References: <20121018225055.13626.59722.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20121018225055.13626.59722.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [OPSAWG] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-firewalls-01.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 08:17:23 -0000 I read the draft,and I think this is useful for decistion of operators's security policy and vendor's implementation. BTW,Today's IPv6 network environment easy to build cascade networks,because most of CPE equipment already implemented "hierarchical DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation" and most of ISP provides IPv6 prefix by dhcp-pd. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chakrabarti-homenet-prefix-alloc-01#section-6 User---|Home GW|----|CPE|-------ISP network <--DHCP-pd <--DHCP-pd In this case,who should act Firewall security? CPE would do firewall to the user traffic for all of delegated prefix, Home GW might do firewall to user traffic. If security policy is same then user traffic would be double count/check on both HomeGW and CPE. It is waste of resource and might be downgraded for user experience. It is enough to do by each of one. What do think? If security policy differs among CPE and Home GW,then it might need to communicate and exchange policy. Does PCP would be useful for this case? Regards, -Shishio -------- Original Message -------- Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-firewalls-01.txt Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 15:50:55 -0700 From: Reply-To: To: CC: A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Operations and Management Area Working Group Working Group of the IETF. Title : On Firewalls in Internet Security Author(s) : Fred Baker Paul Hoffman Filename : draft-ietf-opsawg-firewalls-01.txt Pages : 10 Date : 2012-10-18 Abstract: This document discusses the most important operational and security implications of using modern firewalls in networks. It makes recommendations for operators of firewalls, as well as for firewall vendors. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-firewalls There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-firewalls-01 A diff from the previous version is available at: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-firewalls-01 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ _______________________________________________ I-D-Announce mailing list I-D-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt . . From Ted.Lemon@nominum.com Mon Mar 18 05:39:07 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2569E21F86C3; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 05:39:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.58 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.58 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PZjPyfBDFkyW; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 05:39:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og102.obsmtp.com (exprod7og102.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.157]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58C8221F86C1; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 05:39:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob102.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUUcK6tNxmRVmk8nyImgYEk8pwsonYX70@postini.com; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 05:39:06 PDT Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F28AA1B8E2B; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 05:39:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E6051190043; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 05:39:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com) Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 18 Mar 2013 05:39:00 -0700 From: Ted Lemon To: Shishio Tsuchiya Thread-Topic: [pcp] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-firewalls-01.txt Thread-Index: AQHOI7EJSN+J5yWpzUWpGRENBWQ1s5ir2RaA Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:38:59 +0000 Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630775111F85@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> References: <20121018225055.13626.59722.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5146CD8B.3030108@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <5146CD8B.3030108@cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: <2743AE664308C64599CF8DD5B547296D@nominum.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "" , "" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] [pcp] Fwd: I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-firewalls-01.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 12:39:07 -0000 On Mar 18, 2013, at 4:17 AM, Shishio Tsuchiya wrote: > CPE would do firewall to the user traffic for all of delegated prefix, Ho= me GW might do firewall to user traffic. > If security policy is same then user traffic would be double count/check = on both HomeGW and CPE. > It is waste of resource and might be downgraded for user experience. >=20 > It is enough to do by each of one. > What do think? You might want to look at the work Erik Kline and Lorenzo Colitti have been= doing in homenet on homenet edge detection. As for hierarchical prefix delegation, the current way of doing it is broke= n=97if you divide the prefix arbitrarily and delegate larger prefixes than = /64 within the home, you wind up with a mess, although it does make routing= simple until it fails. If you want to do prefix delegation within the ho= me, the CPE edge router that got the delegation from the ISP should be the = delegating router for the entire home, and the routers below it in the hier= archy should relay PD requests up to the CPE edge. From dthaler@microsoft.com Sun Mar 17 15:53:17 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8217021F8B18; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 15:53:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.932 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.932 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.333, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DU-3SmF45H8U; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 15:53:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2lp0242.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.242]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2D4921F874F; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 15:53:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from BN1AFFO11FD011.protection.gbl (10.58.52.201) by BN1BFFO11HUB023.protection.gbl (10.58.53.133) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.641.9; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 22:53:14 +0000 Received: from TK5EX14HUBC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.37) by BN1AFFO11FD011.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.58.52.71) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.641.9 via Frontend Transport; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 22:53:13 +0000 Received: from TK5EX14MLTW653.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.24.14) by TK5EX14HUBC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.7.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.2.318.3; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 22:52:59 +0000 Received: from TK5EX14MLTW651.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.71.39) by TK5EX14MLTW653.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.24.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.123.3; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 15:52:58 -0700 Received: from TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([169.254.2.226]) by TK5EX14MLTW651.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.71.39]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Sun, 17 Mar 2013 15:52:58 -0700 From: Dave Thaler To: "Bradner, Scott" , Benoit Claise Thread-Topic: [OPSAWG] RFC on random MAC address assignment Thread-Index: AQHOI1oyg2c8ZCG8NEyug3I1J//Dt5iqfO9Q Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 22:52:57 +0000 Message-ID: <341064315C6D0D498193B256F238CF974995D8@TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> References: <2BBEF519D867E04EA729626C246A97870C06C9@eusaamb101.ericsson.se> <5144BA8D.1010704@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.90] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.37; CTRY:US; IPV:CAL; IPV:NLI; EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(51704002)(164054002)(13464002)(24454001)(199002)(377454001)(189002)(33656001)(47976001)(63696002)(69226001)(5343655001)(16406001)(55846006)(50986001)(46102001)(56816002)(51856001)(54356001)(53806001)(54316002)(46406002)(23726001)(66066001)(47446002)(76482001)(79102001)(49866001)(74502001)(5343635001)(47736001)(20776003)(16796002)(56776001)(31966008)(4396001)(74662001)(65816001)(77982001)(59766001)(47776003)(80022001)(50466001); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BN1BFFO11HUB023; H:TK5EX14HUBC101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:InfoDomainNonexistent; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en; X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com X-Forefront-PRVS: 07880C4932 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 08:52:22 -0700 Cc: Pat Thaler , Chris Liljenstolpe , "opsawg@ietf.org" , "ops-area@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [OPSAWG] RFC on random MAC address assignment X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2013 22:53:17 -0000 I wasn't present in that meeting, but I suspect the RFC Scott mentions is m= ost likely what someone might have been referring to. However it actually has nothing to do with r= andom MAC address assignment. It's random IPv6 interface id assignment, which i= s completely independent of the MAC address. -Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: ops-area-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ops-area-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Bradner, Scott > Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 1:14 PM > To: Benoit Claise > Cc: Pat Thaler; Chris Liljenstolpe; opsawg@ietf.org; Glenn Parsons; ops- > area@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [OPS-AREA] [OPSAWG] RFC on random MAC address > assignment >=20 > RFC 4941? >=20 > Scott >=20 > On Mar 16, 2013, at 2:31 PM, Benoit Claise wrote: >=20 > > Dear all, > > > > This following question came up during the draft-ieee-rac-oui-restructu= ring > presentation at the OPSAWG/OPSAREA meeting. > > Would someone know this reference below? > > > > Regards, Benoit. > >> Chris, > >> > >> Can you provide us a pointer to the random MAC address assignment RFC > that was mentioned in the INTAREA discussion today? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Glenn. From melinda.shore@gmail.com Tue Mar 26 11:57:58 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32C0721F84F2 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:57:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.566 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Kbf4fnk11Aau for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:57:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pb0-f50.google.com (mail-pb0-f50.google.com [209.85.160.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3B8121F846C for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:57:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pb0-f50.google.com with SMTP id jt11so628570pbb.37 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:57:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-forwarded-message-id:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=JAQi2lewuzrZROp1gbFCbmsgPXiwzQillMJlx67eC28=; b=CPt8iLHK+8vErlnU86XN14klLeuu7zdhzYtf7O8lNdawSMmwIai6vZ4Wnoe06otRHZ XAYinNoOYf4eVwaqrBeUZAnkyP6x7AHmH3eou9xIQDc3mgmyosDP3scBb74KCGTfryMj PVkOiN9xQU3H4m8MmN/i4nF/9v+mfoNCcCzqA5I1obTDzlkhgNmF++NifD6wQsCQcL8/ 2oD1n8q95CVceWqhlNJ2i1dpkE3FkhsfUnF6TvNsPUI24KJa8+FR6gHEdOhyf1552XvM VwDGs5oSbA9BEoey+mI+Hq1b7xmAP4j5vIvi7EHOm6ab6Gr4gd9rK/dsGCBP27dhRr8p wR1g== X-Received: by 10.68.1.231 with SMTP id 7mr24661799pbp.124.1364324277272; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:57:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spandex.local (66-230-112-119-rb1.fai.dsl.dynamic.acsalaska.net. [66.230.112.119]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ce16sm20175736pac.5.2013.03.26.11.57.53 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:57:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5151EFAE.7030701@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 10:57:50 -0800 From: Melinda Shore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130216 Thunderbird/17.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "opsawg@ietf.org" References: <20130326185443.7626.12010.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20130326185443.7626.12010.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <20130326185443.7626.12010.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [OPSAWG] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-shore-icmp-aup-03.txt X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 18:57:58 -0000 We've just uploaded a revision of the ICMP AUP draft, based on feedback we've received from reviewers and from comments at the Orlando meeting. I think at this point we're ready for broader review and to start moving the draft towards publication. Any comments/additional review would be much appreciated. Thanks, Melinda and Carlos -------- Original Message -------- Subject: New Version Notification for draft-shore-icmp-aup-03.txt Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 11:54:43 -0700 From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: melinda.shore@nomountain.net CC: cpignata@cisco.com A new version of I-D, draft-shore-icmp-aup-03.txt has been successfully submitted by Melinda Shore and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-shore-icmp-aup Revision: 03 Title: An Acceptable Use Policy for New ICMP Types and Codes Creation date: 2013-03-25 Group: Individual Submission Number of pages: 15 URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-shore-icmp-aup-03.txt Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-shore-icmp-aup Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-shore-icmp-aup-03 Diff: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-shore-icmp-aup-03 Abstract: Concerns about lack of clarity concerning when to add new Internet Control Message Protocol (ICMP) types and/or codes have highlighted a need to describe policies for when adding new features to ICMP is desirable and when it is not. In this document we provide a basic description of ICMP's role in the IP stack and some guidelines for the future. The IETF Secretariat