From hiromi@inetcore.com Mon May 18 05:43:01 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: addr-select-dt@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: addr-select-dt@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3392928C268 for ; Mon, 18 May 2009 05:43:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.071 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.071 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.253, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, HOST_EQ_NE_JP=2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hIT2M1LSKfwd for ; Mon, 18 May 2009 05:42:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from inc.inetcore.com (p0245a2.tokyff01.ap.so-net.ne.jp [121.2.69.162]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AA4E28C240 for ; Mon, 18 May 2009 05:42:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2001:200:167:2ec1:21b:63ff:febb:8ad8] (unknown [IPv6:2001:200:167:2ec1:21b:63ff:febb:8ad8]) by inc.inetcore.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 417E52EEB92 for ; Mon, 18 May 2009 21:44:00 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <048AD578-53C4-433D-95F5-84C5D9C388F8@inetcore.com> From: Ruri Hiromi To: addr-select-dt@ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3) Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 21:43:54 +0900 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3) Subject: [addr-select-dt] updating "draft-chown-addr-select-considerations-02.txt" X-BeenThere: addr-select-dt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPv6 Address Selection Design Team List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 12:43:01 -0000 Hi, I just looked over the minute of the last IETF. http://tools.ietf.org/wg/6man/minutes From that minutes, we should pick 2 comments, - from Dave Thaler, to clarify that the node-wide problem is destination address selection - from Thomas Narten, changes that utilize existing update infrastructure,but changes to the update infrastructure. And our answer is the former, is that right? From my observation, the consideration draft is not being working group document. Is it enough for consideration adding above 2 points to make it WG document? Don't we forget some other points? Regards, ------------------------------- Ruri Hiromi Intec NetCore, Inc. / Keio university hiromi@inetcore.com From hiromi@inetcore.com Mon May 18 20:21:37 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: addr-select-dt@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: addr-select-dt@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FAB93A6842 for ; Mon, 18 May 2009 20:21:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.029 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.029 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.211, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, HOST_EQ_NE_JP=2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8Qf8QT2Tsk22 for ; Mon, 18 May 2009 20:21:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from inc.inetcore.com (p0245a2.tokyff01.ap.so-net.ne.jp [121.2.69.162]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AE473A6809 for ; Mon, 18 May 2009 20:21:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2403:2000:1:2:21b:63ff:fec9:f412] (unknown [IPv6:2403:2000:1:2:21b:63ff:fec9:f412]) by inc.inetcore.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5DC302CB81E for ; Tue, 19 May 2009 12:22:40 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <366F2511-16FB-470F-9111-0FBDE8FF849E@inetcore.com> From: Ruri Hiromi To: addr-select-dt@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <048AD578-53C4-433D-95F5-84C5D9C388F8@inetcore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3) Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 12:22:40 +0900 References: <048AD578-53C4-433D-95F5-84C5D9C388F8@inetcore.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.935.3) Subject: Re: [addr-select-dt] updating "draft-chown-addr-select-considerations-02.txt" X-BeenThere: addr-select-dt@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: IPv6 Address Selection Design Team List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 03:21:37 -0000 Hello again, Don't forget to refer this... Problems with IPv6 source address selection and IPv4 NATs, draft-denis-v6ops-nat-addrsel-00, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-denis-v6ops-nat-addrsel-00.txt On 2009/05/18, at 21:43, Ruri Hiromi wrote: > Hi, > > I just looked over the minute of the last IETF. > http://tools.ietf.org/wg/6man/minutes > > From that minutes, we should pick 2 comments, > - from Dave Thaler, to clarify that the node-wide problem is > destination address selection > - from Thomas Narten, changes that utilize existing update > infrastructure,but changes to the update infrastructure. And our > answer is the former, is that right? > > From my observation, the consideration draft is not being working > group document. Is it enough for consideration adding above 2 points > to make it WG document? > Don't we forget some other points? > > Regards, > ------------------------------- > Ruri Hiromi > Intec NetCore, Inc. / Keio university > hiromi@inetcore.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > addr-select-dt mailing list > addr-select-dt@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/addr-select-dt ------------------------------- Ruri Hiromi Intec NetCore, Inc. / Keio university hiromi@inetcore.com