Subject: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat-08.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 08:05:28 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the IPv6 Operations Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : 464XLAT: Combination of Stateful and Stateless Translation
	Author(s)       : Masataka Mawatari
                          Masanobu Kawashima
                          Cameron Byrne
	Filename        : draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat-08.txt
	Pages           : 14
	Date            : 2012-09-18

Abstract:
   This document describes an architecture (464XLAT) for providing
   limited IPv4 connectivity across an IPv6-only network by combining
   existing and well-known stateful protocol translation RFC 6146 in the
   core and stateless protocol translation RFC 6145 at the edge. 464XLAT
   is a simple and scalable technique to quickly deploy limited IPv4
   access service to IPv6-only edge networks without encapsulation.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat-08

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat-08

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

---

From: Cameron Byrne <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 08:29:49 -0700

Dear v6ops WG,

We have submitted -08 of 464XLAT.

Since this is a WG document, we feel obliged to make the following
changes in the -08 version of the 464XLAT I-D to reflect the rough
consensus of ideas.

The following 2 material changes have been made:

1.  BIH reference has been removed.

Tim, Woj, Maoke, Lorenzo, Joel, Randy, Tom, and others have requested
that BIH reference be removed.  The authors believe BIH is a worthy
and complimentary technology for 464XLAT.  Thank you Gang and Hui for
helping us understand BIH and the implementation progress.  We believe
a reference to BIH adds no harm to 464XLAT.

Yet, BIH is its own standard track RFC.  It is unfortunate that we
cannot reference the 464XLAT reader to BIH.  We think this idea will
be needed and useful, but it appears the WG objects to the reference.

2.  IPv6 WAN address sharing has been removed, including IANA
references and ND Proxy references.

Hermant, Woj, and others have found issue with /64 address sharing
with ND Proxy.  Remi's method is clever and technically astute, but it
did not gain WG support. That said, reflecting on the I-D, we could
not include any references to /64 sharing since that is not the core
of the I-D and rightfully should be its own I-D.  We strongly
encourage the lesson learned and analysis of this area be carried
forward in a properly scoped separate I-D.

We originally added Remi's method and BIH because we found them to be
technically worthy, and we are removing them not because of revelation
about their worthiness, but due to rough consensus of the WG and a
greater focus on the narrow scope of 464XLAT.

Thanks again to all the WG participants for taking the time to make
this I-D better.  We believe these edits address the feedback received
in last call.

CB

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:  <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 8:05 AM
Subject: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat-08.txt
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]

        Title           : 464XLAT: Combination of Stateful and
Stateless Translation
        Author(s)       : Masataka Mawatari
                          Masanobu Kawashima
                          Cameron Byrne
        Filename        : draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat-08.txt
        Pages           : 14
        Date            : 2012-09-18

Abstract:

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

---

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 11:12:34 -0500

Hi Cameron,

We like whatever you do :-).

But this one I have concerns.

> be needed and useful, but it appears the WG objects to the reference.

Such consensus judgements are done by the chairs in IETF.

Besides, my understanding was that Lorenzo had removed his objection
because of an implementation, at least just finished or in the works,
or whatever.

Regards,

Behcet

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 09:43:41 -0700

Thank you.

joel

---

From: joel jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 08:18:47 -0700

diff2 is here:

http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-v6ops-464xlat-08.txt

We've got 873 or so messages documenting this discussion  195 of which 
are from one person. I think we have a pretty idea where all the active 
parties stand, we  just need to capture that.

---

From: GangChen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 16:24:27 +0800

Hello Cameron and all,

Thanks for the efforts and sufficient discussions.
I respect the rough consensus. Hopefully, our implementation could be
done before WGLC so there is something useful to this technology.

Best Regards
Gang

---

From: Lorenzo Colitti <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 17:39:04 +0900

> because of an implementation, at least just finished or in the works,

To clarify: Cameron is correct that object to mentioning BIH (on the
grounds that it is unnecessary). The existence of an implementation does
not remove my objection.