From mcristino@amsconsultingllc.com Sun Mar 1 04:05:33 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 589003A6AF1 for ; Sun, 1 Mar 2009 04:05:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -17.997 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_BR=0.955, HELO_EQ_DYNAMIC=1.144, HOST_EQ_BR=1.295, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_16=1.526, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_2=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_UNI=0.591, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 2wWQ1X0klMdo for ; Sun, 1 Mar 2009 04:05:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from 189-015-81-132.xd-dynamic.ctbcnetsuper.com.br (189-015-81-132.xd-dynamic.ctbcnetsuper.com.br [189.15.81.132]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5A3E328C0DF for ; Sun, 1 Mar 2009 04:05:24 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: The confirmatory letter was sent From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090301120525.5A3E328C0DF@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 04:05:24 -0800 (PST)
Welcome to our site.

Special Offers by email

Dear our client,

You have registered to receive special offers by email. Your first newsletter will be delivered soon.

You may unsubscribe at any time by clicking unsubscribe in the emails you receive, or by visiting www.loftyneed.com.

You may also change your preferences at any time by visiting www.slickpeak.com.

Best regards,

First Online Business Brothers.

From ogbornmargi@alsystems.biz Sun Mar 1 04:11:53 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C148B3A6AF1 for ; Sun, 1 Mar 2009 04:11:53 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -13.072 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.072 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=1.778, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 MO5a04PwduO4 for ; Sun, 1 Mar 2009 04:11:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from 93-173-56-237.bb.netvision.net.il (93-173-56-237.bb.netvision.net.il [93.173.56.237]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id AE11B3A6A0E for ; Sun, 1 Mar 2009 04:11:49 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Hi From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090301121150.AE11B3A6A0E@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 04:11:49 -0800 (PST)
We ship Worldwide! To all countries! To all destinations!
Cant see a picture? Click Here!

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please log in to www.flipzap.com, click on "My Account", click "Update" to edit your registration details and uncheck the "Receive Newsletter?" check box.
Or unsubscribe at http://flipzap.com/faq.php

Privacy Statement | Terms & Conditions | Contact

KEYWORD Ltd.
Tower Bridge Business Complex. Unit 4, B977. 708 Clements Road. London. SE31 6DG

© 2006-2008 KEYWORD, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

From sandeepkshukla@gmail.com Sun Mar 1 06:12:05 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8455B3A68EF; Sun, 1 Mar 2009 06:12:05 -0800 (PST) X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER, MIME error: error: unexpected end of header X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -85.896 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-85.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, HOST_EQ_SK=0.555, INVALID_MSGID=1.9, MISSING_HB_SEP=2.5, MSGID_SHORT=1.078, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, SARE_MSGID_SHORT=0.856, TT_MSGID_TRUNC=1.364, UNCLOSED_BRACKET=2.206, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 mxv8B8Ks20G5; Sun, 1 Mar 2009 06:12:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from CUSTOMER.VPLS.NET (cygnus.mech.sk [92.245.2.222]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id BF6C63A694C; Sun, 1 Mar 2009 06:11:50 -0800 (PST) From: "Kristin Simms" To: "Roman Velasquez" Subject: Your wife will love beautiful Chopard Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 06:12:23 -0800 Message-ID: <7[2 From kormanyos.jozsef@akkrt.hu Sun Mar 1 07:53:54 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7925428C131 for ; Sun, 1 Mar 2009 07:53:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -22.444 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-22.444 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_EQ_DK=1.009, HOST_EQ_DHCP=1.295, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_16=1.526, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_2=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_UNI=0.591, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 dp3bsAG49fsd for ; Sun, 1 Mar 2009 07:53:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from 1385159534.dhcp.dbnet.dk (1385159534.dhcp.dbnet.dk [82.143.219.110]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7F69128C12D for ; Sun, 1 Mar 2009 07:53:51 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: change your preferences From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090301155352.7F69128C12D@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 07:53:51 -0800 (PST)
Welcome to our site.

Special Offers by email

Dear our client,

You have registered to receive special offers by email. Your first newsletter will be delivered soon.

You may unsubscribe at any time by clicking unsubscribe in the emails you receive, or by visiting www.loftyneed.com.

You may also change your preferences at any time by visiting www.loftyneed.com.

Best regards,

First Online Business Brothers.

From jobsdd@aceplaces.com Sun Mar 1 08:50:18 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7EF23A6BA0 for ; Sun, 1 Mar 2009 08:50:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -50.949 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-50.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HELO_IS_SMALL6=0.556, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=1.778, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 py687C771bKL for ; Sun, 1 Mar 2009 08:50:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from agf.fr (unknown [85.98.89.154]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 994673A6901 for ; Sun, 1 Mar 2009 08:50:16 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Email Handling Opinion Needed From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090301165016.994673A6901@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 08:50:16 -0800 (PST)
We ship Worldwide! To all countries! To all destinations!
Cant see a picture? Click Here!

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please log in to www.sheerfree.com, click on "My Account", click "Update" to edit your registration details and uncheck the "Receive Newsletter?" check box.
Or unsubscribe at http://sheerfree.com/faq.php

Privacy Statement | Terms & Conditions | Contact

KEYWORD Ltd.
Tower Bridge Business Complex. Unit 9, B372. 157 Clements Road. London. SE12 7DG

© 2006-2008 KEYWORD, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

From iywmd@hbfuller.com Sun Mar 1 12:55:50 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07EC03A6B9E; Sun, 1 Mar 2009 12:55:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -26.092 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-26.092 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HOST_ALMOST_IP=1.889, FH_HOST_EQ_DYNAMICIP=2.177, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 T6-6ap1lUlNJ; Sun, 1 Mar 2009 12:55:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from CUSTOMER.VPLS.NET (134.Red-81-37-188.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [81.37.188.134]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9A25C3A6880; Sun, 1 Mar 2009 12:55:34 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: 178.96.224.168 by 114.64.196.6; Sun, 01 Mar 2009 22:53:08 +0200 Message-ID: From: "Cornelia Glenn" To: "Dorothea Doyle" Subject: Superior Gucci watches for a dime Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 15:56:08 -0500 Money is tight, times are hard. Christmas is over. Time to get a new Watch! http://rxunmistakably.cn Now that the Holidays are behind us and stores everywhere are offering their lowest prices of the year, Exquisite Reps is keeping up with the times to help you keep your time with a distinguished watch at a ridiculously low price! http://rxunmistakably.cn With so many watches that look and work like the real thing, I guarantee you'll have a delicious time finding yours at our store! From mbonet@ajsessalines.net Sun Mar 1 16:04:59 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F370E3A67F7 for ; Sun, 1 Mar 2009 16:04:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -40.974 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-40.974 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, HELO_EQ_PL=1.135, HOST_EQ_PL=1.95, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=1.778, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 H8cHO+rjI5+g for ; Sun, 1 Mar 2009 16:04:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from fdi26.internetdsl.tpnet.pl (fdi26.internetdsl.tpnet.pl [83.13.86.26]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 12E043A67EE for ; Sun, 1 Mar 2009 16:04:54 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: You've received an answer to your question From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090302000456.12E043A67EE@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 16:04:54 -0800 (PST)
We ship Worldwide! To all countries! To all destinations!
Cant see a picture? Click Here!

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please log in to www.fizzspicy.com, click on "My Account", click "Update" to edit your registration details and uncheck the "Receive Newsletter?" check box.
Or unsubscribe at http://fizzspicy.com/faq.php

Privacy Statement | Terms & Conditions | Contact

KEYWORD Ltd.
Tower Bridge Business Complex. Unit 7, B499. 223 Clements Road. London. SE50 1DG

© 2006-2008 KEYWORD, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

From micael.aronssond@acmetruck.com Sun Mar 1 17:18:52 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9759B3A692D for ; Sun, 1 Mar 2009 17:18:52 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -40.309 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-40.309 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_EQ_DK=1.009, HELO_MISMATCH_DK=1.7, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=1.778, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 IYALJCm-0uFk for ; Sun, 1 Mar 2009 17:18:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from agrsci.dk (unknown [62.48.121.191]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5426E3A68E1 for ; Sun, 1 Mar 2009 17:18:49 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: You've received an answer to your question From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090302011850.5426E3A68E1@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 17:18:49 -0800 (PST)
We ship Worldwide! To all countries! To all destinations!
Cant see a picture? Click Here!

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please log in to www.fizzspicy.com, click on "My Account", click "Update" to edit your registration details and uncheck the "Receive Newsletter?" check box.
Or unsubscribe at http://fizzspicy.com/faq.php

Privacy Statement | Terms & Conditions | Contact

KEYWORD Ltd.
Tower Bridge Business Complex. Unit 8, B284. 051 Clements Road. London. SE14 2DG

© 2006-2008 KEYWORD, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

From sempl@mail.cybase.co.uk Sun Mar 1 18:12:17 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54D6828C0CE; Sun, 1 Mar 2009 18:12:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -16.845 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.845 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 lC+KfFBgaVgW; Sun, 1 Mar 2009 18:12:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from CUSTOMER.VPLS.NET (unknown [89.43.148.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7ED043A6A79; Sun, 1 Mar 2009 18:12:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Superior IWC watches for a dime Message-ID: From: "Stacie Foote" Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit To: "Fabian Melendez" Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 18:12:33 -0800 Have you been dreaming about owning an expensive designer watch? Now you can, just without the high price tag! http://rxcairn.cn Visit Exquisite Reps today and get a terrific designer watch imitation for a uniquely low price. Our watches are the most sought-after in the market, offering you the best performance and unsurpassed quality while allowing you to choose from hundreds of models within dozens of brands! http://rxcairn.cn Most experts couldn't tell our watches from the real thing, and neither will your friends, so impress them today get started with your watch shopping now! From oilmeal@agriwatch.com Mon Mar 2 05:23:42 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAA873A68B8 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 05:23:42 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.562 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.562 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DNS_FROM_RFC_DSN=1.495, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_BR=0.955, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, HOST_EQ_BR=1.295, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=1.778, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 LhoO8HuhQw-g for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 05:23:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from 200-96-250-187.bsace706.dsl.brasiltelecom.net.br (200-96-250-187.bsace706.dsl.brasiltelecom.net.br [200.96.250.187]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1B0BA3A6C0D for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 05:23:37 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Email Handling Opinion Needed From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090302132338.1B0BA3A6C0D@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 05:23:37 -0800 (PST)
We ship Worldwide! To all countries! To all destinations!
Cant see a picture? Click Here!

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please log in to www.morerosy.com, click on "My Account", click "Update" to edit your registration details and uncheck the "Receive Newsletter?" check box.
Or unsubscribe at http://morerosy.com/faq.php

Privacy Statement | Terms & Conditions | Contact

KEYWORD Ltd.
Tower Bridge Business Complex. Unit 5, B361. 265 Clements Road. London. SE55 9DG

© 2006-2008 KEYWORD, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

From jenn_huntdd@aigvalic.com Mon Mar 2 14:29:15 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3FAB3A6403 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 14:29:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -45.463 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-45.463 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_VERIZON_P=2.144, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_VERIZON_POOL=1.495, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=1.778, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 m-GhEkCpRp87 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 14:29:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from pool-173-55-59-205.lsanca.fios.verizon.net (pool-173-55-59-205.lsanca.fios.verizon.net [173.55.59.205]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 610043A69E9 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 14:29:14 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Email Handling Opinion Needed From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090302222914.610043A69E9@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 14:29:14 -0800 (PST)
We ship Worldwide! To all countries! To all destinations!
Cant see a picture? Click Here!

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please log in to www.humorextol.com, click on "My Account", click "Update" to edit your registration details and uncheck the "Receive Newsletter?" check box.
Or unsubscribe at http://humorextol.com/faq.php

Privacy Statement | Terms & Conditions | Contact

KEYWORD Ltd.
Tower Bridge Business Complex. Unit 2, B960. 475 Clements Road. London. SE89 8DG

© 2006-2008 KEYWORD, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

From nguyenct@aicins.com Mon Mar 2 14:30:34 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 287353A69E9 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 14:30:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -52.546 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-52.546 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_EQ_BR=0.955, HOST_EQ_BR=1.295, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=1.778, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, SARE_RECV_VIRTUACOMBR=1.193, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 UuVPRDKA1-iG for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 14:30:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from c906e41d.virtua.com.br (c906e41d.virtua.com.br [201.6.228.29]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3E7A93A6A2C for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 14:30:31 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Invoice from itunes.com From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090302223032.3E7A93A6A2C@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 14:30:31 -0800 (PST)
We ship Worldwide! To all countries! To all destinations!
Cant see a picture? Click Here!

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please log in to www.caresweet.com, click on "My Account", click "Update" to edit your registration details and uncheck the "Receive Newsletter?" check box.
Or unsubscribe at http://caresweet.com/faq.php

Privacy Statement | Terms & Conditions | Contact

KEYWORD Ltd.
Tower Bridge Business Complex. Unit 9, B104. 689 Clements Road. London. SE90 7DG

© 2006-2008 KEYWORD, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

From mary@americanfolkfestival.com Mon Mar 2 14:46:54 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6448928C284 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 14:46:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.788 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.788 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_DYNAMIC_SPLIT_IP=3.493, HELO_EQ_IP_ADDR=1.119, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_UNI=0.591, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 FGRHpV4S1NLq for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 14:46:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from 177.103.103.87.rev.vodafone.pt (177.103.103.87.rev.vodafone.pt [87.103.103.177]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C1A9628C21A for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 14:46:47 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: For Our Users: Exclusive Jan Offer From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090302224649.C1A9628C21A@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 14:46:47 -0800 (PST)
Tell a friend · Download latest version See this email as a webpage

Hello!

Shipped Privately And Discreetly To Your Door!
See this email as a webpage
  We want to put a great big grin on your face in 2009. You'll be to rejoice all year.  

Unsubscribe · Lost Password · Account Settings · Help · Terms of Service · Privacy

© 2003-2009 TRADEs Limited.TRADEs Communications S.a.r.l., 22/24 Green St, Amsterdam L3677.

TRADEs, TRADEsIn, TRADEsOut, TRADEscasts, TRADEs Certified, TRADEsMe!, TRADEs Pro, TRADEsFind, TRADEs Prime, TRADEs To Go, associated logos and the TRADES-symbol are trademarks of TRADEs Limited.
From msv72@btopenworld.com Mon Mar 2 20:45:19 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3D063A6864; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 20:45:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.742 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.742 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, GB_ROLEX=5, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 LiVUZuhck1Di; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 20:45:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from CUSTOMER.VPLS.NET (ppp-58-8-138-29.revip2.asianet.co.th [58.8.138.29]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B4F613A67DD; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 20:45:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: Your wife will love beautiful Longines Message-ID: From: "Gregorio Purcell" Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit To: "Clifford Black" Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 20:45:31 -0800 A fine designer watch says means refinement and money. A fine, non-expensive designer watch also means intelligence! http://rxslivers.cn At Exquisite Reps we make it easy to get a Rolex, Cartier, Bvlgari or any brand name that you think of. As long as it is considered a high class watch, you will find it in our one of a kind store! http://rxslivers.cn Check out our extensive inventory and enjoy the fastest shipping available online! See you at Exquisite Reps! From junee_kim@advantech.co.kr Mon Mar 2 21:05:35 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A7043A67AF for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 21:05:35 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.88 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.88 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_VERIZON_P=2.144, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_VERIZON_POOL=1.495, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=1.778, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 71AY8t+nupZ7 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 21:05:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from pool-71-177-46-121.lsanca.fios.verizon.net (pool-71-177-46-121.lsanca.fios.verizon.net [71.177.46.121]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1C8733A69CA for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 21:05:27 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Hi From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090303050528.1C8733A69CA@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 21:05:27 -0800 (PST)
We ship Worldwide! To all countries! To all destinations!
Cant see a picture? Click Here!

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please log in to www.swelljoy.com, click on "My Account", click "Update" to edit your registration details and uncheck the "Receive Newsletter?" check box.
Or unsubscribe at http://swelljoy.com/faq.php

Privacy Statement | Terms & Conditions | Contact

KEYWORD Ltd.
Tower Bridge Business Complex. Unit 1, B943. 786 Clements Road. London. SE69 9DG

© 2006-2008 KEYWORD, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Mar 3 03:42:13 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B138228C28F for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 03:42:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.048 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 0lPxj6iVbAEv for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 03:42:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D030028C250 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 03:42:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LeSuv-00089d-Ry for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Tue, 03 Mar 2009 11:36:09 +0000 Received: from [202.50.176.161] (helo=unobtainium.braintrust.co.nz) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LeSup-00089B-HY for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Mar 2009 11:36:05 +0000 Received: from dhcp-216.wireless (202-160-48-203.knossos.net.nz [202.160.48.203]) by unobtainium.braintrust.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AA052794A; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 00:36:01 +1300 (NZDT) Message-Id: <14E2E072-54AA-4743-9736-9AFE3A379AF1@daork.net> From: Nathan Ward To: v6ops WG In-Reply-To: <20090303113001.36E1E3A6BFF@core3.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Fwd: I-D Action:draft-nward-6to4-qualification-00.txt Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 00:36:00 +1300 References: <20090303113001.36E1E3A6BFF@core3.amsl.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Hi all, I have just submitted the following, comments appreciated! Please note that it is very draft so I could get this in by the deadline and get some discussion happening. On 4/03/2009, at 12:30 AM, Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > > Title : 6to4 Qualification > Author(s) : N. Ward > Filename : draft-nward-6to4-qualification-00.txt > Pages : 9 > Date : 2009-03-03 > > A deployment problem exists with existing self-configuring 6to4 > implementations making often incorrect assumptions about the state of > their IPv4 network connectivity. > This document describes the problem, and proposes a qualification > mechanism by which nodes can validate that their connectivity to the > global IPv6 network is suitable for use with the 6to4 protocol. > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nward-6to4-qualification-00.txt > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader > implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the > Internet-Draft. > > > !DSPAM:22,49ad14da98525283917279! > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > !DSPAM:22,49ad14da98525283917279! -- Nathan Ward From jcortes@amis.com Tue Mar 3 04:14:41 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44C023A69BD for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 04:14:41 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.374 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.374 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_95=3, FH_HELO_ALMOST_IP=5.417, FH_HOST_ALMOST_IP=1.889, HELO_DYNAMIC_SPLIT_IP=3.493, HOST_EQ_STATIC=1.172, HOST_EQ_STATICIP=1.511, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_08=1.787, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_1=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 IMuMQriIMRwy for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 04:14:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from 144.Red-80-59-226.staticIP.rima-tde.net (144.Red-80-59-226.staticIP.rima-tde.net [80.59.226.144]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 70F623A6970 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 04:14:38 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Your order From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090303121439.70F623A6970@core3.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 04:14:38 -0800 (PST)
Having trouble viewing this email? Click here to view as a webpage.

Get inside to learn about our best offers!
From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Mar 3 07:18:13 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B3393A6358 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 07:18:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.971 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.971 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.524, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 SOT6-q0gWKGc for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 07:18:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C279728C250 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 07:17:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LeWJ4-000JwK-Fd for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:13:18 +0000 Received: from [128.18.84.113] (helo=mailgate-internal3.sri.com) by psg.com with smtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LeWIy-000Jvn-1j for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:13:14 +0000 Received: from smssmtp-internal1.sri.com (128.18.84.115) by mailgate-internal3.sri.com with SMTP; 3 Mar 2009 15:13:11 -0000 X-AuditID: 80125473-ac391bb000000aa9-f8-49ad4907d691 Received: from srimail1.sri.com (srimail1.SRI.COM [128.18.30.11]) by smssmtp-internal1.sri.com (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id 4A50421AF30 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 07:13:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.2.101] (static-72-90-189-2.nwrknj.east.verizon.net [72.90.189.2]) by mail.sri.com (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPSA id <0KFX0065DRLY0XU7@mail.sri.com> for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Mar 2009 07:13:11 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 10:13:12 -0500 From: Ed Jankiewicz Subject: Sad news To: 6man , IPv6 Operations , Internet Area Message-id: <49AD4908.3090808@sri.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209) X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Word is out that Jim Bound passed away yesterday. I don't know any other details, but thought that colleagues on these lists would want to know. Jim could be brutally honest, but he was just as quick and generous in support of people and ideas he believed in as he was in criticizing what he recognized as wrongheaded or counterproductive. I feel very fortunate to have had his support in my work almost from the first day I surfaced in the IPv6 space. -- Ed Jankiewicz - SRI International Fort Monmouth Branch Office - IPv6 Research Supporting DISA Standards Engineering Branch 732-389-1003 or ed.jankiewicz@sri.com From mlake@ncusd203.org Tue Mar 3 07:22:28 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1DEB3A68A7; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 07:22:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -22.144 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-22.144 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 BxTcM4lfbLH5; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 07:22:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from CUSTOMER.VPLS.NET (host114-37-static.204-80-b.business.telecomitalia.it [80.204.37.114]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id DBCE33A687E; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 07:22:18 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: 143.0.13.186 by 48.242.161.216; Tue, 03 Mar 2009 19:16:50 +0400 Message-ID: From: "Roland Guthrie" To: "Ronald Mansfield" Subject: Show your friends how filthy rich You are Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 07:22:50 -0800 What's the fastest way to a lover's heart? A beautiful and stylish designer watch! http://rxcollusive.cn Take advantage of Exquisite Reps tremendous specials, and get yourself a superb designer watch imitation for just a couple of hundred bucks. Plus an extra 15 percent discount when you get two time pieces in the same purchase! http://rxcollusive.cn Don't delay your pleasure: our incredible watch collection awaits you at Exquisite Reps, so come visit us now! From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Mar 3 07:49:11 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF4C828C0E4 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 07:49:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.546 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.546 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.052, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 rzDpmH9Y1BU9 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 07:49:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F34F028C0DB for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 07:49:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LeWqP-000LpF-KZ for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:47:45 +0000 Received: from [209.85.146.182] (helo=wa-out-1112.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LeWqH-000LoY-07 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:47:39 +0000 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id j5so1617101wah.9 for ; Tue, 03 Mar 2009 07:47:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=2Jnc3HwO+ZLHcEVdT9NhFF+tnOJQNKnnoSaIzY0D9EI=; b=AjplpJX9sZs2O2DzAy//OhoWdxN8gXGo/doZ4eBwuG6xee5xZECkUJSm2eoP16t7Ed Hyxg0Tj5EnEXglEB5ibw9mKpVIxI3O12H9b/FJGo9SFUtMcHBnnwG2wbBPz8DuoLfsL0 3vNWYq4gl327KjSTuh0i59MIpm/boe3wAWDUs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=VMO2qZNk00mygenwLDmDkF3H5EGkD5qWj9m8zsURpLqTq6Ll6ggYtFisZvVfK8KIje gdz2fV8aXIoDs5MxmRnWHXjc507Xjb2z3rGjJ+Pm6N8jp1J0A484Fb8hIutqUngGDbzQ 0C/39u/U2g7fya5MLbEFQ1n3hWW1vDx3+KxiQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.114.88.1 with SMTP id l1mr3450155wab.97.1236095256500; Tue, 03 Mar 2009 07:47:36 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <49AD4908.3090808@sri.com> References: <49AD4908.3090808@sri.com> Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 07:47:36 -0800 Message-ID: <1c16a4870903030747p1c3f4ffcl1664ea967ec64c46@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Sad news From: Stacy Hughes To: Ed Jankiewicz Cc: 6man , IPv6 Operations , Internet Area Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016364c673fac1a9c046438daf7 Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: --0016364c673fac1a9c046438daf7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Ed, Thanks for letting us know. Jim's enthusiasm and energy were an inspiration to me and many I know. Stacy Hughes Internap Peering Coordinator On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Ed Jankiewicz wrote: > Word is out that Jim Bound passed away yesterday. I don't know any other > details, but thought that colleagues on these lists would want to know. > > Jim could be brutally honest, but he was just as quick and generous in > support of people and ideas he believed in as he was in criticizing what he > recognized as wrongheaded or counterproductive. I feel very > fortunate to have had his support in my work almost from the first day I > surfaced in the IPv6 space. > > -- > Ed Jankiewicz - SRI International > Fort Monmouth Branch Office - IPv6 Research Supporting DISA Standards > Engineering Branch > 732-389-1003 or ed.jankiewicz@sri.com > > --0016364c673fac1a9c046438daf7 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Ed,=A0
Thanks for letting us know. =A0Jim's enthusiasm and energ= y were an inspiration to me and many I know.
Stacy Hughes
Internap Peering Coordinator

On Tue, M= ar 3, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Ed Jankiewicz <edward.jankiewicz@sri.com> wrote= :
Word is out that Jim Bound passed away yest= erday. =A0I don't know any other details, but thought that colleagues o= n these lists would want to know.

Jim could be brutally honest, but he was just as quick and generous in supp= ort of people and ideas he believed in as he was in criticizing what he rec= ognized as wrongheaded or counterproductive. =A0I feel very
fortunate to have had his support in my work almost from the first day I su= rfaced in the IPv6 space.

--
Ed Jankiewicz - SRI International
Fort Monmouth Branch Office - IPv6 Research Supporting DISA Standards Engin= eering Branch
732-389-1003 or =A0ed.jankiewicz@sri.com


--0016364c673fac1a9c046438daf7-- From connor@webraska.com Tue Mar 3 08:54:27 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12B653A684F; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 08:54:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -13.566 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, HOST_EQ_BR=1.295, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 G9R6LDkWHQOE; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 08:54:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from CUSTOMER.VPLS.NET (200-96-227-116.cpece705.dsl.brasiltelecom.net.br [200.96.227.116]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 97B083A679C; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 08:53:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: Girls will love this Tag Heuer watch Message-ID: From: "Devon Mccord" Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit To: "Fran Salgado" Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 11:54:26 -0500 Money is tight, times are hard. Christmas is over. Time to get a new Watch! http://brooderwatches.cn The watch of your dreams doesn't have to be an overpriced piece of machinery. Nowadays you can get the same functionality and distinctive looks from the next best thing. Visit Exquisite Reps and choose from hundreds of gorgeous models at less than ten percent the price of an original. http://brooderwatches.cn With so many watches that look and work like the real thing, I guarantee you'll have a delicious time finding yours at our store! From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Mar 3 19:12:02 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AB743A6984 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 19:12:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.048 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 K9zD-YAhoKx6 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 19:11:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 688C53A6943 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 19:11:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LehSc-000AaG-Kv for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 04 Mar 2009 03:07:54 +0000 Received: from [130.215.36.91] (helo=mail1.wpi.edu) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LehSV-000AZc-Vf for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Mar 2009 03:07:51 +0000 Received: from SMTP.WPI.EDU (SMTP.WPI.EDU [130.215.36.186]) by mail1.wpi.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n2437jJ9018783 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 22:07:47 -0500 Received: from angus.ind.WPI.EDU (ANGUS.IND.WPI.EDU [130.215.130.21]) by SMTP.WPI.EDU (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n2437i7p027699 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 22:07:44 -0500 (envelope-from cra@WPI.EDU) Received: from angus.ind.WPI.EDU (angus.ind.WPI.EDU [127.0.0.1]) by angus.ind.WPI.EDU (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n2437iZI023208 for ; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 22:07:44 -0500 Received: (from cra@localhost) by angus.ind.WPI.EDU (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id n2437iJ3023207 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 3 Mar 2009 22:07:44 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: angus.ind.WPI.EDU: cra set sender to cra@WPI.EDU using -f Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 22:07:44 -0500 From: Chuck Anderson To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org Subject: DHCPv6 DUID vs. MAC, default-router, prefix Message-ID: <20090304030744.GH27493@angus.ind.WPI.EDU> Mail-Followup-To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: I hope I'm not out of line posting here, but I thought people would like to know about some interesting discussion of operational issues and developments around DHCPv6, some inside the IETF, some outside. First up is a rather large thread on ISC's dhcp-users list discussing issues surrounding DHCPv6's lack of a client link-layer address option: https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/2009-February/thread.html#8088 https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/dhcp-users/2009-March/thread.html#8118 Next is a much smaller thread about SLAAC and DDNS on dhcwg: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg09635.html Finally, the message below from Ralph Droms is the first I've heard of a draft documenting DHCPv6 options for default router and prefix length. I welcome this addition. Regards, Chuck ----- Forwarded message from Ralph Droms ----- From: Ralph Droms To: nanog@nanog.org Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 06:10:09 -0500 Subject: Re: IPv6 confusion Precedence: list Thanks to all who responded with input about why DHCPv6 should have options for default routers and prefix information. We've published a draft defining these options, which will be discussed at the upcoming IETF meeting in San Francisco. A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Default Router and Prefix Advertisement Options for DHCPv6 Author(s) : R. Droms, T. Narten Filename : draft-droms-dhc-dhcpv6-default-router-00.txt Pages : 7 Date : 2009-03-02 In some IPv6 deployments, there is a requirement to communicate a list of default routers and advertised prefixes to a host through DHCP. This document defines DHCP options to carry that information. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-droms-dhc-dhcpv6-default-router-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ - Ralph ----- End forwarded message ----- From juliec@775.net Wed Mar 4 02:59:05 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D1273A6885 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 02:59:05 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.333 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.333 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_BR=0.955, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, HELO_EQ_TELESP=1.245, HOST_EQ_BR=1.295, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_RECV_SPAM_DOMN02=1.666, SARE_UNI=0.591, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 gScZ+PChVjp6 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 02:59:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from 201-27-110-1.dsl.telesp.net.br (201-27-110-1.dsl.telesp.net.br [201.27.110.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0E68F3A680E for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 02:59:02 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: ALM Works From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090304105903.0E68F3A680E@core3.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 02:59:02 -0800 (PST)
Tell a friend · Download latest version See this email as a webpage

Hello!

Shipped Privately And Discreetly To Your Door!
See this email as a webpage
  We want to put a great big grin on your face in 2009. You'll be to rejoice all year.  

Unsubscribe · Lost Password · Account Settings · Help · Terms of Service · Privacy

© 2003-2009 TRADEs Limited.TRADEs Communications S.a.r.l., 22/24 Green St, Amsterdam L3677.

TRADEs, TRADEsIn, TRADEsOut, TRADEscasts, TRADEs Certified, TRADEsMe!, TRADEs Pro, TRADEsFind, TRADEs Prime, TRADEs To Go, associated logos and the TRADES-symbol are trademarks of TRADEs Limited.
From lcostleyk@alexandriatoyota.dealerspace.com Wed Mar 4 13:44:04 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9867C3A67AA for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 13:44:04 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -32.686 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-32.686 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_ALMOST_IP=5.417, FH_HOST_ALMOST_IP=1.889, FH_HOST_EQ_DYNAMICIP=2.177, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_DYNAMIC_SPLIT_IP=3.493, HELO_EQ_DYNAMIC=1.144, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=1.778, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 fuCoAb7LvuOg for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 13:44:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from 60.Red-83-36-8.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net (60.Red-83-36-8.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [83.36.8.60]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D70EF3A6B05 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 13:43:48 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Check out hot deals From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090304214348.D70EF3A6B05@core3.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 13:43:48 -0800 (PST)
We ship Worldwide! To all countries! To all destinations!
Cant see a picture? Click Here!

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please log in to www.boldcrisp.com, click on "My Account", click "Update" to edit your registration details and uncheck the "Receive Newsletter?" check box.
Or unsubscribe at http://boldcrisp.com/faq.php

Privacy Statement | Terms & Conditions | Contact

KEYWORD Ltd.
Tower Bridge Business Complex. Unit 7, B902. 515 Clements Road. London. SE37 9DG

© 2006-2008 KEYWORD, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 4 18:21:34 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95FD028C14E for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 18:21:34 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.465 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.465 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.970, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 sJPdCBRi4Ic3 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 18:21:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66AB728C20B for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 18:21:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lf38M-000HmO-8e for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 05 Mar 2009 02:16:26 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.70] (helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lf38G-000Hm1-EO for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2009 02:16:22 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,304,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="151062640" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Mar 2009 02:16:17 +0000 Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (sj-core-4.cisco.com [171.68.223.138]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n252GHKL022818 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 18:16:17 -0800 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n252GHUI023805 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 02:16:17 GMT Received: from xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.187]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 4 Mar 2009 18:16:17 -0800 Received: from dhcp-171-70-225-184.cisco.com ([171.70.225.184]) by xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 4 Mar 2009 18:16:16 -0800 Message-Id: <5440BA13-C799-492C-91A0-3537ACB855A3@cisco.com> From: Fred Baker To: IPv6 Operations Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Agenda issue Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 18:16:16 -0800 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Mar 2009 02:16:17.0242 (UTC) FILETIME=[5DB19BA0:01C99D38] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1665; t=1236219377; x=1237083377; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20 |Subject:=20Agenda=20issue |Sender:=20; bh=hNpBAF29UxHVQVfV0XLvKSnpvQG1EGr/7sVWb/f/6Og=; b=sT8Hg21IaIyZg+H99GrIQ6if7BSIHN1vtbacyqazIzhLh0OIYnBssZCh8Q EwY3hW8cX8WIgtJHDiTrls/15YCCeaDHD06rhzf75+nvw/ao/wcktHbmo4yY Vv9sBiWsdI; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: I have gotten a number of folks asking for time on the agenda, but I have a problem: -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 19268 Sep 10 05:33 draft-ietf-v6ops-ra- guard-01.txt -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 61870 Sep 29 08:52 draft-miyata-v6ops- snatpt-02.txt -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 48468 Oct 1 10:58 draft-endo-v6ops- dnsproxy-01.txt -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 43841 Oct 15 10:48 draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel- security-concerns- 01.txt -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 18562 Oct 15 10:48 draft-krishnan-v6ops- teredo-update-04.txt -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 53090 Oct 30 10:22 draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe- router-03.txt -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 36662 Nov 3 10:15 draft-bajko-v6ops-port- restricted-ipaddr-a ssign-02.txt -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 48973 Nov 3 11:06 draft-luo-v6ops-6man- shim6-lbam-00.txt -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 30429 Nov 3 14:26 draft-chown-v6ops-rogue- ra-02.txt -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 134587 Nov 3 16:14 draft-thaler-v6ops- teredo-extensions-02.tx t -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 16462 Feb 17 14:52 draft-rgaglian-v6ops- v6inixp-01.txt -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 9716 Feb 18 08:01 draft-denis-v6ops-nat- addrsel-00.txt -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 41369 Feb 23 22:05 draft-bnss-v6ops- upnp-00.txt -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 19211 Mar 4 14:11 draft-vyncke-vdv-v6ops- conf-stats-00.txt I see four new drafts post-Minneapolis. The Rogue RA and Teredo drafts, whose last call completed several months ago and the write-up is awaiting new drafts, don't have new drafts. Hello? Anyone out there? I need new drafts (cut-off date is Friday) for anything folks expect to discuss in the WG meeting... From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 4 19:01:45 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB62128C434 for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 19:01:45 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.094 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.094 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.401, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 IrDOdpsiuAzp for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 19:01:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B18328C42E for ; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 19:01:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lf3pB-000M0l-7w for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 05 Mar 2009 03:00:41 +0000 Received: from [119.145.14.64] (helo=szxga01-in.huawei.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lf3p0-000Lzn-3P for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2009 03:00:37 +0000 Received: from huawei.com (szxga01-in [172.24.2.3]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KG0008FNJ0S83@szxga01-in.huawei.com> for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2009 11:00:28 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.1.24]) by szxga01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KG000BRDJ0S84@szxga01-in.huawei.com> for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2009 11:00:28 +0800 (CST) Received: from J66104 ([10.111.12.219]) by szxml04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0KG0002R4J0SYI@szxml04-in.huawei.com> for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2009 11:00:28 +0800 (CST) Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 11:00:27 +0800 From: Sheng Jiang Subject: RE: Agenda issue To: 'Fred Baker' , 'IPv6 Operations' Cc: 'Brian Carpenter' Message-id: <01b701c99d3e$89e1f570$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Thread-index: AcmdO18LrrtWliuqQu+tUZkmgPFBsAAATs8QAABtL2A= Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Hi, Fred, We have submitted a new draft, draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00. I think we are already on the vows agenda. Are we? If no yet, please count us in. Thanks. Best regards, Sheng >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org >[mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker >Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 10:16 AM >To: IPv6 Operations >Subject: Agenda issue > >I have gotten a number of folks asking for time on the agenda, but I >have a problem: > > >-rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 19268 Sep 10 05:33 draft-ietf-v6ops-ra- >guard-01.txt >-rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 61870 Sep 29 08:52 draft-miyata-v6ops- >snatpt-02.txt >-rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 48468 Oct 1 10:58 draft-endo-v6ops- >dnsproxy-01.txt >-rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 43841 Oct 15 10:48 draft-ietf-v6ops-tunnel- >security-concerns- >01.txt >-rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 18562 Oct 15 10:48 draft-krishnan-v6ops- >teredo-update-04.txt >-rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 53090 Oct 30 10:22 draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe- >router-03.txt >-rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 36662 Nov 3 10:15 draft-bajko-v6ops-port- >restricted-ipaddr-a >ssign-02.txt >-rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 48973 Nov 3 11:06 draft-luo-v6ops-6man- >shim6-lbam-00.txt >-rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 30429 Nov 3 14:26 draft-chown-v6ops-rogue- >ra-02.txt >-rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 134587 Nov 3 16:14 >draft-thaler-v6ops- teredo-extensions-02.tx t >-rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 16462 Feb 17 14:52 draft-rgaglian-v6ops- >v6inixp-01.txt >-rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 9716 Feb 18 08:01 draft-denis-v6ops-nat- >addrsel-00.txt >-rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 41369 Feb 23 22:05 draft-bnss-v6ops- >upnp-00.txt >-rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 19211 Mar 4 14:11 draft-vyncke-vdv-v6ops- >conf-stats-00.txt > > >I see four new drafts post-Minneapolis. The Rogue RA and Teredo drafts, >whose last call completed several months ago and the write-up is >awaiting new drafts, don't have new drafts. > >Hello? Anyone out there? I need new drafts (cut-off date is Friday) for >anything folks expect to discuss in the WG meeting... > From braun@swanhunter.com Wed Mar 4 23:38:33 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8093B3A6A9B; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 23:38:33 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.935 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.935 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_95=3, GB_ROLEX=5, HELO_EQ_DYNAMIC=1.144, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX=1.666, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 w4sNv26hGUSd; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 23:38:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from host215-13-dynamic.25-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it (host215-13-dynamic.25-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it [79.25.13.215]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D188E3A67E5; Wed, 4 Mar 2009 23:38:13 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: 157.24.93.40 by 162.128.96.237; Thu, 05 Mar 2009 12:36:40 +0500 Message-ID: From: "Noah Pate" To: "Nadia Stevenson" Subject: Impress everyone with wealth and watches Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 02:38:40 -0500 A fine designer watch says means refinement and money. A fine, non-expensive designer watch also means intelligence! http://rxglary.cn At Exquisite Reps we make it easy to get a Rolex, Cartier, Bvlgari or any brand name that you think of. As long as it is considered a high class watch, you will find it in our one of a kind store! http://rxglary.cn Most experts couldn't tell our watches from the real thing, and neither will your friends, so impress them today get started with your watch shopping now! From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Mar 5 00:59:18 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BD3628C169 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 00:59:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.434 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.434 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.939, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 CszKScfPg1B4 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 00:59:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E06B3A67DB for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 00:59:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lf9MZ-0000mC-GT for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 05 Mar 2009 08:55:31 +0000 Received: from [171.68.10.86] (helo=sj-iport-4.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lf9MU-0000lE-KB for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2009 08:55:28 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,305,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="30983389" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Mar 2009 08:55:24 +0000 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n258tO46004003; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 00:55:24 -0800 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n258tOm2019601; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 08:55:24 GMT Received: from xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.174]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 5 Mar 2009 00:55:24 -0800 Received: from [172.17.187.241] ([10.21.124.175]) by xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 5 Mar 2009 00:55:24 -0800 Cc: "'IPv6 Operations'" , "'Brian Carpenter'" Message-Id: <7FAE1435-0FE1-4C23-B8BF-151D58AF5341@cisco.com> From: Fred Baker To: Sheng Jiang In-Reply-To: <01b701c99d3e$89e1f570$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: Agenda issue Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 00:55:22 -0800 References: <01b701c99d3e$89e1f570$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Mar 2009 08:55:24.0368 (UTC) FILETIME=[1F4B0D00:01C99D70] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2514; t=1236243324; x=1237107324; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20Agenda=20issue |Sender:=20; bh=nCclVKkzU3GuMi5GQ5HTtBPSEl4E0ij9hz1mt1w8Kc4=; b=VAoofaNieWtZKnfMvDcrVSLpDZ2hN0ilAkGLrDZCQDKfMQfKpW13mt4TbV FSgG3gSGMfEv71Ibj7i0manKZflsPqNa8Zt15B+7ezqszSYVVHQ8Gu/oczwg 0Y1PRv0v0D; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: OK. I truly wish you had put the working group moniker in the draft name (individual submission to a named working group), as it is hard to keep track of work in a working group with individual submission names. On Mar 4, 2009, at 7:00 PM, Sheng Jiang wrote: > Hi, Fred, > > We have submitted a new draft, draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00. I > think we are > already on the vows agenda. Are we? If no yet, please count us in. > Thanks. > > Best regards, > > Sheng > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org >> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker >> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 10:16 AM >> To: IPv6 Operations >> Subject: Agenda issue >> >> I have gotten a number of folks asking for time on the agenda, but I >> have a problem: >> >> >> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 19268 Sep 10 05:33 draft-ietf-v6ops-ra- >> guard-01.txt >> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 61870 Sep 29 08:52 draft-miyata-v6ops- >> snatpt-02.txt >> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 48468 Oct 1 10:58 draft-endo-v6ops- >> dnsproxy-01.txt >> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 43841 Oct 15 10:48 draft-ietf-v6ops- >> tunnel- >> security-concerns- >> 01.txt >> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 18562 Oct 15 10:48 draft-krishnan-v6ops- >> teredo-update-04.txt >> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 53090 Oct 30 10:22 draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe- >> router-03.txt >> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 36662 Nov 3 10:15 draft-bajko-v6ops-port- >> restricted-ipaddr-a >> ssign-02.txt >> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 48973 Nov 3 11:06 draft-luo-v6ops-6man- >> shim6-lbam-00.txt >> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 30429 Nov 3 14:26 draft-chown-v6ops- >> rogue- >> ra-02.txt >> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 134587 Nov 3 16:14 >> draft-thaler-v6ops- teredo-extensions-02.tx t >> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 16462 Feb 17 14:52 draft-rgaglian-v6ops- >> v6inixp-01.txt >> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 9716 Feb 18 08:01 draft-denis-v6ops-nat- >> addrsel-00.txt >> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 41369 Feb 23 22:05 draft-bnss-v6ops- >> upnp-00.txt >> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 19211 Mar 4 14:11 draft-vyncke-vdv-v6ops- >> conf-stats-00.txt >> >> >> I see four new drafts post-Minneapolis. The Rogue RA and Teredo >> drafts, >> whose last call completed several months ago and the write-up is >> awaiting new drafts, don't have new drafts. >> >> Hello? Anyone out there? I need new drafts (cut-off date is Friday) >> for >> anything folks expect to discuss in the WG meeting... >> > From savutu.952@fugro.com Thu Mar 5 01:28:13 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 094B428C292; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 01:28:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -11.144 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.144 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 oP-19SV2NSg5; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 01:28:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from HSI-KBW-085-216-108-138.hsi.kabelbw.de (HSI-KBW-085-216-108-138.hsi.kabelbw.de [85.216.108.138]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7449728C132; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 01:28:08 -0800 (PST) X-Originating-IP: 130.64.184.107 by 200.153.143.7; Thu, 05 Mar 2009 08:20:37 -0100 Message-ID: To: "Madelyn Chin" From: "Edwina Schmidt" Subject: Impress everyone with wealth and watches Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 04:28:37 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit There are things in life that seem unattainable. Owning a fine watch doesn't have to be one of them. http://rxceremonially.cn The watch of your dreams doesn't have to be an overpriced piece of machinery. Nowadays you can get the same functionality and distinctive looks from the next best thing. Visit Exquisite Reps and choose from hundreds of gorgeous models at less than ten percent the price of an original. http://rxceremonially.cn Get ready to feel like a kid in a candy store when you see our incredible collection of fine reproduction timepieces at Exquisite Reps! Come on, get started now! From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Mar 5 01:30:13 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16AA628C292 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 01:30:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.072 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.072 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 ydk37u0qHO22 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 01:30:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20BE628C132 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 01:30:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lf9st-0003fp-EG for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 05 Mar 2009 09:28:55 +0000 Received: from [119.145.14.65] (helo=szxga02-in.huawei.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lf9sn-0003eP-M6 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2009 09:28:52 +0000 Received: from huawei.com (szxga02-in [172.24.2.6]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KG100D950ZZNI@szxga02-in.huawei.com> for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2009 17:28:48 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.1.12]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KG1006D00ZZO8@szxga02-in.huawei.com> for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2009 17:28:47 +0800 (CST) Received: from J66104 ([10.111.12.219]) by szxml05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0KG100BSB0ZZKB@szxml05-in.huawei.com> for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2009 17:28:47 +0800 (CST) Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2009 17:28:47 +0800 From: Sheng Jiang Subject: RE: Agenda issue In-reply-to: <7FAE1435-0FE1-4C23-B8BF-151D58AF5341@cisco.com> To: 'Fred Baker' Cc: 'IPv6 Operations' , 'Brian Carpenter' Message-id: <01d401c99d74$c9600490$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Thread-index: AcmdcKeRcryZ/MspT8qEcavULU5jWgAA1Irw Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: For sure. We know the draft name rules. When we wrote the draft, we were not sure which WG it should be submitted. It seems relevant to both v6ops and behave. We can fix it in 01 version by putting v6ops into the draft name. Best regards, Sheng >-----Original Message----- >From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@cisco.com] >Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 4:55 PM >To: Sheng Jiang >Cc: 'IPv6 Operations'; 'Brian Carpenter' >Subject: Re: Agenda issue > >OK. I truly wish you had put the working group moniker in the >draft name (individual submission to a named working group), >as it is hard to keep track of work in a working group with >individual submission names. > >On Mar 4, 2009, at 7:00 PM, Sheng Jiang wrote: > >> Hi, Fred, >> >> We have submitted a new draft, >draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00. I think >> we are already on the vows agenda. Are we? If no yet, please >count us >> in. >> Thanks. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Sheng >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org >>> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker >>> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 10:16 AM >>> To: IPv6 Operations >>> Subject: Agenda issue >>> >>> I have gotten a number of folks asking for time on the >agenda, but I >>> have a problem: >>> >>> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 19268 Sep 10 05:33 draft-ietf-v6ops-ra- >>> guard-01.txt >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 61870 Sep 29 08:52 draft-miyata-v6ops- >>> snatpt-02.txt >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 48468 Oct 1 10:58 draft-endo-v6ops- >>> dnsproxy-01.txt >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 43841 Oct 15 10:48 draft-ietf-v6ops- >>> tunnel- >>> security-concerns- >>> 01.txt >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 18562 Oct 15 10:48 draft-krishnan-v6ops- >>> teredo-update-04.txt >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 53090 Oct 30 10:22 >draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe- >>> router-03.txt >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 36662 Nov 3 10:15 >draft-bajko-v6ops-port- >>> restricted-ipaddr-a >>> ssign-02.txt >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 48973 Nov 3 11:06 draft-luo-v6ops-6man- >>> shim6-lbam-00.txt >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 30429 Nov 3 14:26 draft-chown-v6ops- >>> rogue- >>> ra-02.txt >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 134587 Nov 3 16:14 >>> draft-thaler-v6ops- teredo-extensions-02.tx t >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 16462 Feb 17 14:52 draft-rgaglian-v6ops- >>> v6inixp-01.txt >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 9716 Feb 18 08:01 draft-denis-v6ops-nat- >>> addrsel-00.txt >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 41369 Feb 23 22:05 draft-bnss-v6ops- >>> upnp-00.txt >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 19211 Mar 4 14:11 >draft-vyncke-vdv-v6ops- >>> conf-stats-00.txt >>> >>> >>> I see four new drafts post-Minneapolis. The Rogue RA and Teredo >>> drafts, whose last call completed several months ago and >the write-up >>> is awaiting new drafts, don't have new drafts. >>> >>> Hello? Anyone out there? I need new drafts (cut-off date is Friday) >>> for anything folks expect to discuss in the WG meeting... >>> >> > From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Mar 5 02:33:02 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F76328C36B for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 02:33:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.113 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.113 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.487, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 SskA86Y0jlUh for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 02:33:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7626928C10E for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 02:33:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LfAqk-0009T0-Pe for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 05 Mar 2009 10:30:46 +0000 Received: from [2001:1890:1112:1::20] (helo=mail.ietf.org) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LfAqW-0009Ro-FA for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2009 10:30:41 +0000 Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id D370E28C39E; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 02:30:01 -0800 (PST) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-02.txt Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20090305103001.D370E28C39E@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 02:30:01 -0800 (PST) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: --NextPart 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 : IPv6 RA-Guard Author(s) : E. Levy-Abegnoli, et al. Filename : draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-02.txt Pages : 10 Date : 2009-03-05 It is particularly easy to experience "rogue" routers on an unsecured link. Devices acting as a rougue router may send illegitimate RAs. Section 6 of SeND [RFC3971] provides a full solution to this problem, by enabling routers certification. This solution does, however, require all nodes on an L2 network segment to support SeND, as well as it carries some deployment challenges. End-nodes must be provisioned with certificate anchors. The solution works better when end-nodes have access to a Certificate Revocation List server, and to a Network Time Protocol server, both typically off-link, which brings some bootstrap issues. When using IPv6 within a single L2 network segment it is possible and sometimes desirable to enable layer 2 devices to drop rogue RAs before they reach end-nodes. In order to distinguish valid from rogue RAs, the L2 devices can use a spectrum of criterias, from a static scheme that blocks RAs received on un-trusted ports, or from un-trusted sources, to a more dynamic scheme that uses SeND to challenge RA sources. This document reviews various techniques applicable on the L2 devices to reduce the threat of rogue RAs. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-02.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-02.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2009-03-05022839.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Mar 5 02:43:00 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 691E428C474 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 02:43:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.531 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.531 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, EXTRA_MPART_TYPE=1, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_GIF_ATTACH=1.42, TVD_FW_GRAPHIC_NAME_MID=0.543] 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 DSBrGF4yiRAZ for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 02:42:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98B8B28C470 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 02:42:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LfB1t-000AZy-Jg for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 05 Mar 2009 10:42:17 +0000 Received: from [144.254.224.140] (helo=ams-iport-1.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LfB1n-000AYi-7K for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2009 10:42:14 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,306,1233532800"; d="gif'147?scan'147,208,217,147";a="35426458" Received: from ams-dkim-1.cisco.com ([144.254.224.138]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 05 Mar 2009 10:42:08 +0000 Received: from ams-core-1.cisco.com (ams-core-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.150]) by ams-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n25Ag8XH015991 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 11:42:08 +0100 Received: from xbh-ams-331.emea.cisco.com (xbh-ams-331.cisco.com [144.254.231.71]) by ams-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n25Ag8n4021059 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 10:42:08 GMT Received: from xmb-ams-331.cisco.com ([144.254.231.76]) by xbh-ams-331.emea.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 5 Mar 2009 11:42:08 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative"; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C99D7F.0831A527" Subject: draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-02 submitted Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 11:42:05 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-02 submitted Thread-Index: AcmdfwZlQCMIzjDETLOHXp+70i3Tpw== From: "Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Mar 2009 10:42:08.0241 (UTC) FILETIME=[084C8610:01C99D7F] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=11719; t=1236249728; x=1237113728; c=relaxed/simple; s=amsdkim1002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=gvandeve@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Gunter=20Van=20de=20Velde=20(gvandeve)=22=20 |Subject:=20draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard-02=20submitted |Sender:=20; bh=YqgXcQNmw8IdrbYIjQt9rnKOlJdf4uPDdgTV8t9i58Q=; b=NUGQVOWW2udIooQJT+DdvzsiRZWXfNUvd0boPJYoA8UYKiO5Mn2l1EWqLl vguU392xuY3EEl0IB5WdP5e1JRuoeRw0fO1DtVRkiRu/uUBx4ZDx6bzINWWD PahuxFNyvG; Authentication-Results: ams-dkim-1; header.From=gvandeve@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/amsdkim1002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C99D7F.0831A527 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_002_01C99D7F.0831A527" ------_=_NextPart_002_01C99D7F.0831A527 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear All, =20 A new version of RA-Guard has just been submitted. =20 During the latest WGLC the following comments were registered: =20 Thomas Narten: http://ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2008/msg01728.html Wes Beebee: http://ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2008/msg01729.html Hemant Sigh: http://ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2008/msg01730.html Fred Templin: http://ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2008/msg01733.html =20 The comments and suggestions have been addressed in this version by the followong actions: =20 1) Adding the: Intentional Status: Informational 2) The SeND and RA-Guard Interaction is addressed in section "4.2. SeND-based RA-Guard" 3) Added a security consideration regarding the assumption that RA-filtering must be done according the RA-Guard criteria if RA-Guard is enabled =20 Kind Regards, G/ =20 =20 =09 Gunter Van de Velde Technical Leader NSSTG - ECMD gvandeve@cisco.com Phone: +32 (0) 2 704 5473 Mobile: +32 (0) 476 476 022 Fax: +32 (0) 2 704 2500 CCIE - 3741 Cisco Systems Belgium BVBA/SPRL De Kleetlaan 6A 1831 Diegem Belgium Belgium Cisco home page =20 =09 =09 Think before you print.=09 This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete all copies of this message. Cisco Systems Belgium BVBA/SPRL=20 De Kleetlaan 6A - Pegasus Park=20 B-1831 Diegem=20 BTW BE 047.138.227 RPR/RPM Brussel/Bruxelles=09 =20 =20 ------_=_NextPart_002_01C99D7F.0831A527 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear=20 All,
 
A new version=20 of RA-Guard has just been submitted.
 
During = the latest=20 WGLC the following comments were registered:
 
Thomas = Narten: http://= ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2008/msg01728.html
=
Wes = Beebee: http://= ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2008/msg01729.html
=
Hemant = Sigh: http://= ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2008/msg01730.html
=
Fred = Templin: http://= ops.ietf.org/lists/v6ops/v6ops.2008/msg01733.html
=
 
The = comments and=20 suggestions have been addressed in this version by the followong=20 actions:
 
1) = Adding the:=20 Intentional Status: Informational
2) The SeND=20 and RA-Guard Interaction is addressed in section "4.2.  SeND-based=20 RA-Guard"
3) = Added a security=20 consideration regarding the assumption that RA-filtering must be done = according=20 the RA-Guard criteria if RA-Guard is enabled
 
Kind=20 Regards,
G/
 
 
Gunter=20 Van de Velde
Technical=20 Leader
NSSTG -=20 ECMD

gvandeve@cisco.com
Phone:=20 +32 (0) 2 704 5473
Mobile: +32 = (0) 476=20 476 022
Fax: +32 (0) 2 704=20 2500

CCIE - 3741

 Cisco=20 Systems Belgium BVBA/SPRL
De Kleetlaan = 6A
1831=20 Diegem
Belgium
Belgium
Cisco home=20 page

  
=20 Think before you print.This=20 e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for = the sole=20 use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution = or=20 disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not = the=20 intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the = recipient),=20 please contact the sender by reply e-mail and delete all = copies of=20 this message.

Cisco Systems Belgium BVBA/SPRL
De=20 Kleetlaan 6A - Pegasus Park
B-1831 Diegem
BTW BE = 047.138.227=20 RPR/RPM Brussel/Bruxelles

 
------_=_NextPart_002_01C99D7F.0831A527-- ------_=_NextPart_001_01C99D7F.0831A527 Content-Type: image/gif; name="spacer.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Description: spacer.gif Content-Location: http://www.cisco.com/global/EMEA/brand/signature/default/spacer.gif R0lGODlhCgAKAJEAAAAAAP///////wAAACH5BAEAAAIALAAAAAAKAAoAAAIIlI+py+0PYysAOw== ------_=_NextPart_001_01C99D7F.0831A527 Content-Type: image/gif; name="footerHead.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Description: footerHead.gif Content-Location: http://www.cisco.com/global/EMEA/brand/signature/default/footerHead.gif R0lGODlhHwIBAJEAAAAAAP///9bY2v///yH5BAEAAAMALAAAAAAfAgEAAAIVlI+py+0Po5y02ouz 3rz7D4biSE4FADs= ------_=_NextPart_001_01C99D7F.0831A527 Content-Type: image/gif; name="green.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Description: green.gif Content-Location: http://www.cisco.com/global/EMEA/brand/signature/capital/green.gif R0lGODlhEgATAJEAAAAAAP///wCZAP///yH5BAEAAAMALAAAAAASABMAAAIojI+pGyK8nINqUiTf bVnfvHEg1UmhdZRqaawu6XZVjKb0/CYxo8JOAQA7 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C99D7F.0831A527 Content-Type: image/gif; name="footer.gif" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Description: footer.gif Content-Location: http://www.cisco.com/global/EMEA/brand/signature/default/footer.gif R0lGODlhHwIRAMQAAAAAAP////f3+PX19vHx8u7u7+jp6+Tl59/g4tze4Nvd39ja3NfZ29bY2vHy 8+3u7+vs7eTl5ufp6uTm597g4dze3/j5+fHy8v7+/v39/fv7+/n5+f///wAAAAAAAAAAACH5BAEA ABwALAAAAAAfAhEAAAXY4JIFZGmeaKqubOu+cCzPdG3feK7vfO//wKCwlVkkNsOkcslsOp/QqHRK FW4SE0J1y+16v+CweJwkZCfktHrNbrvf7yymMoDb7/i8fp8fKDABFweAfIWGh4iJijIYBxclBhIa i5SVlpeYXhoSBicQDA+ZoqOkpaYuBQwQKRsIERcCp7KztLV2Ag4RCBYsDgcUDcHCw8TFxsfIycrL zM3Oz9DR0tPU1dbX2Nna29zd3twUEQ625OXm5+jp6uvs7e7v8PHy8/T19vf4+fr7/P3+/wADChxI UEYIADs= ------_=_NextPart_001_01C99D7F.0831A527-- From ngawkoj@agorarte.com Thu Mar 5 04:06:44 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7192C3A6980 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 04:06:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -34.96 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-34.96 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DRUGS_PAIN=0.01, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_64=0.6, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, SARE_OBFU_HYDROCODONE=1.666, SARE_UNI=0.591, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 YGP9jpmH06go for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 04:06:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from p5B291C9C.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (p5B291C9C.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [91.41.28.156]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 389B53A68DE for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 04:06:36 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Re: Your Hydroc0done 0rder #658369 From: Mike Murphy MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090305120637.389B53A68DE@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 04:06:36 -0800 (PST)
Tell a friend · Download latest version See this email as a webpage

Hello!

Shipped Privately And Discreetly To Your Door!
See this email as a webpage
  We want to put a great big grin on your face in 2009. You'll be to rejoice all year.  

Unsubscribe · Lost Password · Account Settings · Help · Terms of Service · Privacy

© 2003-2009 A.I.s Limited.A.I.s Communications S.a.r.l., 1111 Westchester Avenue, White Plains, NY 10604
From jones@amada.com Thu Mar 5 09:18:58 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C51728C3EF for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 09:18:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -58.826 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-58.826 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=1.778, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 7ejrJiCUkzZ6 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 09:18:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from cuscon111721.tstt.net.tt (cuscon111721.tstt.net.tt [190.59.58.141]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E1B4828C1DE for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 09:18:51 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: You've received an answer to your question From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090305171851.E1B4828C1DE@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 09:18:51 -0800 (PST)
We ship Worldwide! To all countries! To all destinations!
Cant see a picture? Click Here!

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please log in to www.sinpeqoj.cn, click on "My Account", click "Update" to edit your registration details and uncheck the "Receive Newsletter?" check box.
Or unsubscribe at http://sinpeqoj.cn/faq.php

Privacy Statement | Terms & Conditions | Contact

KEYWORD Ltd.
Tower Bridge Business Complex. Unit 0, B599. 749 Clements Road. London. SE69 3DG

© 2006-2008 KEYWORD, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Mar 5 18:37:09 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19C6828C190 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 18:37:09 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.247 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.247 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.352, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 Dmyq1u0yAJet for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 18:37:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C08B28C146 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 18:37:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LfPrN-0006gJ-1X for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 06 Mar 2009 02:32:25 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.70] (helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LfPrG-0006fl-DW for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Mar 2009 02:32:21 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,311,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="151678196" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Mar 2009 02:32:17 +0000 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n262WHkc008611; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 18:32:17 -0800 Received: from dwingwxp01 (dhcp-171-70-247-3.cisco.com [171.70.247.3]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n262WHTR028646; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 02:32:17 GMT From: "Dan Wing" To: "'Sheng Jiang'" Cc: "'IPv6 Operations'" , "'Brian Carpenter'" , , References: <7FAE1435-0FE1-4C23-B8BF-151D58AF5341@cisco.com> <01d401c99d74$c9600490$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> Subject: draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00 Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 18:32:17 -0800 Message-ID: <110c01c99e03$c46343a0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 In-Reply-To: <01d401c99d74$c9600490$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> Thread-Index: AcmdcKeRcryZ/MspT8qEcavULU5jWgAA1IrwACOcU6A= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=4406; t=1236306737; x=1237170737; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Dan=20Wing=22=20 |Subject:=20draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00 |Sender:=20; bh=7A+BQNjem1z2ZoKdHutZ/gyT4KYFA05ntlACSU0wyrM=; b=BLjiZk+KTfmhX1ifZ1Irm3IKTO3uEtyZ1OepXD5m3Y9icBIqWrxnuDbP1v XZetse4Fxnpbw6qfAefHzWcavOIuy2kFnYGSqw6R+KvNxUvVw6OfBO1qOLsi FbOt76fSN0QSzUbZyNGNY+NqjZ3nQsaqTXKCvj4H4ESC7TqH1lqeM=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org > [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sheng Jiang > Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 1:29 AM > To: 'Fred Baker' > Cc: 'IPv6 Operations'; 'Brian Carpenter' > Subject: RE: Agenda issue > > For sure. We know the draft name rules. When we wrote the > draft, we were not sure > which WG it should be submitted. It seems relevant to both > v6ops and behave. As a BEHAVE co-chair, I haven't seen a request for agenda time for draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00, nor any discussion about the draft on the BEHAVE mailing list. > We can fix it in 01 version by putting v6ops into the draft name. Renaming a draft starts it at -00. Anyway, regarding your draft: it says that the CGN has to terminate the 6-over-4 tunnel. Couldn't some other device -- not necessarily the CGN -- terminate that tunnel? If so, then I believe your proposal is very much just a NAT44 ("CGN") and a 6-over-4 tunnel from the in-home gateway to some device that terminates the tunnel and has IPv6 Internet connectivity. This tunnel concentrator might belong to the ISP providing IPv4 service, but it might also be offered by someone else on the Internet (as a separate service), in which case the 6-over-4 tunnel might actually go *across* the service provider's NAT44 ("CGN"). -d > Best regards, > > Sheng > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@cisco.com] > >Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 4:55 PM > >To: Sheng Jiang > >Cc: 'IPv6 Operations'; 'Brian Carpenter' > >Subject: Re: Agenda issue > > > >OK. I truly wish you had put the working group moniker in the > >draft name (individual submission to a named working group), > >as it is hard to keep track of work in a working group with > >individual submission names. > > > >On Mar 4, 2009, at 7:00 PM, Sheng Jiang wrote: > > > >> Hi, Fred, > >> > >> We have submitted a new draft, > >draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00. I think > >> we are already on the vows agenda. Are we? If no yet, please > >count us > >> in. > >> Thanks. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> Sheng > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org > >>> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker > >>> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 10:16 AM > >>> To: IPv6 Operations > >>> Subject: Agenda issue > >>> > >>> I have gotten a number of folks asking for time on the > >agenda, but I > >>> have a problem: > >>> > >>> > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 19268 Sep 10 05:33 draft-ietf-v6ops-ra- > >>> guard-01.txt > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 61870 Sep 29 08:52 draft-miyata-v6ops- > >>> snatpt-02.txt > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 48468 Oct 1 10:58 draft-endo-v6ops- > >>> dnsproxy-01.txt > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 43841 Oct 15 10:48 draft-ietf-v6ops- > >>> tunnel- > >>> security-concerns- > >>> 01.txt > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 18562 Oct 15 10:48 > draft-krishnan-v6ops- > >>> teredo-update-04.txt > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 53090 Oct 30 10:22 > >draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe- > >>> router-03.txt > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 36662 Nov 3 10:15 > >draft-bajko-v6ops-port- > >>> restricted-ipaddr-a > >>> ssign-02.txt > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 48973 Nov 3 11:06 > draft-luo-v6ops-6man- > >>> shim6-lbam-00.txt > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 30429 Nov 3 14:26 draft-chown-v6ops- > >>> rogue- > >>> ra-02.txt > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 134587 Nov 3 16:14 > >>> draft-thaler-v6ops- teredo-extensions-02.tx t > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 16462 Feb 17 14:52 > draft-rgaglian-v6ops- > >>> v6inixp-01.txt > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 9716 Feb 18 08:01 > draft-denis-v6ops-nat- > >>> addrsel-00.txt > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 41369 Feb 23 22:05 draft-bnss-v6ops- > >>> upnp-00.txt > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 19211 Mar 4 14:11 > >draft-vyncke-vdv-v6ops- > >>> conf-stats-00.txt > >>> > >>> > >>> I see four new drafts post-Minneapolis. The Rogue RA and Teredo > >>> drafts, whose last call completed several months ago and > >the write-up > >>> is awaiting new drafts, don't have new drafts. > >>> > >>> Hello? Anyone out there? I need new drafts (cut-off date > is Friday) > >>> for anything folks expect to discuss in the WG meeting... > >>> > >> > > > > From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Mar 5 20:06:17 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A13833A6BE3 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 20:06:17 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.081 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.081 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.024, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 Jcw+SGBbzXGz for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 20:06:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 725CC3A6B85 for ; Thu, 5 Mar 2009 20:06:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LfRHn-000BqB-Jt for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 06 Mar 2009 04:03:47 +0000 Received: from [119.145.14.67] (helo=szxga04-in.huawei.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LfRHi-000BpS-10 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Mar 2009 04:03:44 +0000 Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KG200M51GM4PE@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Mar 2009 12:03:40 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.1.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KG200964GM43Z@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Mar 2009 12:03:40 +0800 (CST) Received: from J66104 ([10.111.12.219]) by szxml05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0KG2006OVGM3IK@szxml05-in.huawei.com> for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Mar 2009 12:03:40 +0800 (CST) Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 12:03:39 +0800 From: Sheng Jiang Subject: RE: draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00 In-reply-to: <110c01c99e03$c46343a0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> To: 'Dan Wing' Cc: 'IPv6 Operations' , guoseu@huawei.com, brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Message-id: <021d01c99e10$888458d0$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Thread-index: AcmdcKeRcryZ/MspT8qEcavULU5jWgAA1IrwACOcU6AAAwEyYA== Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: >From: Dan Wing [mailto:dwing@cisco.com] >> We can fix it in 01 version by putting v6ops into the draft name. > >Renaming a draft starts it at -00. Thanks, we can rename it with 00 and WG name. >Anyway, regarding your draft: it says that the CGN has to >terminate the 6-over-4 tunnel. Couldn't some other device -- >not necessarily the CGN -- terminate that tunnel? If so, then >I believe your proposal is very much just a NAT44 ("CGN") and >a 6-over-4 tunnel from the in-home gateway to some device that >terminates the tunnel and has IPv6 Internet connectivity. >This tunnel concentrator might belong to the ISP providing >IPv4 service, but it might also be offered by someone else on >the Internet (as a separate service), in which case the >6-over-4 tunnel might actually go *across* the service >provider's NAT44 ("CGN"). Yes, your understanding is right. NAT44 and 6-over-4 tunnel can be splitted. They are separate technologies. In our proposal, we suggest to integrate NAT44 and 6-over-4 tunnel into a same device box (CGN) so that ISPs can deploy it with a clear IPv6 migration strategy. Here, we may extend the concept of CGN a little bit. When we talk about CGN, we are actually referring to a carrier-grade device, which integrates NAT functions and other integrated technologies. Best regards, Sheng >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@cisco.com] >> >Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 4:55 PM >> >To: Sheng Jiang >> >Cc: 'IPv6 Operations'; 'Brian Carpenter' >> >Subject: Re: Agenda issue >> > >> >OK. I truly wish you had put the working group moniker in the >> >draft name (individual submission to a named working group), >> >as it is hard to keep track of work in a working group with >> >individual submission names. >> > >> >On Mar 4, 2009, at 7:00 PM, Sheng Jiang wrote: >> > >> >> Hi, Fred, >> >> >> >> We have submitted a new draft, >> >draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00. I think >> >> we are already on the vows agenda. Are we? If no yet, please >> >count us >> >> in. >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> Sheng >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org >> >>> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker >> >>> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 10:16 AM >> >>> To: IPv6 Operations >> >>> Subject: Agenda issue >> >>> >> >>> I have gotten a number of folks asking for time on the >> >agenda, but I >> >>> have a problem: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 19268 Sep 10 05:33 >draft-ietf-v6ops-ra- >> >>> guard-01.txt >> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 61870 Sep 29 08:52 draft-miyata-v6ops- >> >>> snatpt-02.txt >> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 48468 Oct 1 10:58 draft-endo-v6ops- >> >>> dnsproxy-01.txt >> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 43841 Oct 15 10:48 draft-ietf-v6ops- >> >>> tunnel- >> >>> security-concerns- >> >>> 01.txt >> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 18562 Oct 15 10:48 >> draft-krishnan-v6ops- >> >>> teredo-update-04.txt >> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 53090 Oct 30 10:22 >> >draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe- >> >>> router-03.txt >> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 36662 Nov 3 10:15 >> >draft-bajko-v6ops-port- >> >>> restricted-ipaddr-a >> >>> ssign-02.txt >> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 48973 Nov 3 11:06 >> draft-luo-v6ops-6man- >> >>> shim6-lbam-00.txt >> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 30429 Nov 3 14:26 draft-chown-v6ops- >> >>> rogue- >> >>> ra-02.txt >> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 134587 Nov 3 16:14 >> >>> draft-thaler-v6ops- teredo-extensions-02.tx t >> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 16462 Feb 17 14:52 >> draft-rgaglian-v6ops- >> >>> v6inixp-01.txt >> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 9716 Feb 18 08:01 >> draft-denis-v6ops-nat- >> >>> addrsel-00.txt >> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 41369 Feb 23 22:05 draft-bnss-v6ops- >> >>> upnp-00.txt >> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 19211 Mar 4 14:11 >> >draft-vyncke-vdv-v6ops- >> >>> conf-stats-00.txt >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> I see four new drafts post-Minneapolis. The Rogue RA and Teredo >> >>> drafts, whose last call completed several months ago and >> >the write-up >> >>> is awaiting new drafts, don't have new drafts. >> >>> >> >>> Hello? Anyone out there? I need new drafts (cut-off date >> is Friday) >> >>> for anything folks expect to discuss in the WG meeting... >> >>> >> >> >> > >> >> > From butlermv@ihupt.org Fri Mar 6 02:22:02 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CE0C3A6C22; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 02:22:02 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -66.446 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-66.446 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DRUGS_ERECTILE=1, DRUGS_ERECTILE_OBFU=1.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, FR_M_E_D_S=10.357, FUZZY_VPILL=0.687, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, MANGLED_MEDS=2.3, MANGLED_VIAGRA=2.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_OBFU_VIAGRA=1.666, TT_OBSCURED_VIAGRA=1.652, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 4RVwg-WmTLlc; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 02:22:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from host86-163-171-85.range86-163.btcentralplus.com (host86-163-171-85.range86-163.btcentralplus.com [86.163.171.85]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 07C603A6991; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 02:21:36 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <5735dl1269376lowpan-request@lists.ietf.org> From: "Eli Hooker" <6lowpan-request@lists.ietf.org> To: "Darrel Merrill" <6lowpan-request@lists.ietf.org> X-Originating-IP: 215.118.117.182 by 138.55.192.18; Fri, 06 Mar 2009 12:21:09 +0200 Subject: Your V1agra 0rder #24695 Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 05:22:09 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Dear Antoinette, All the c0n trolled m e d s you search for at one place http://hendersonpisuj88.angelfire.com/Index.html From hendrik@bhinneka.com Fri Mar 6 07:17:07 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5139928C246; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 07:17:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -70.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-70.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_80=2, DRUGS_DEPRESSION=0.01, FR_M_E_D_S=10.357, HELO_EQ_DYNAMIC=1.144, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6, MANGLED_MEDS=2.3, MANGLED_ZOLOFT=2.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_OBFU_PART_OFT=2.333, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 U2xAgYi5T3gE; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 07:17:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from host108-18-dynamic.14-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it (host108-18-dynamic.14-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it [87.14.18.108]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 867FF3A685C; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 07:16:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: Your Zol0ft 0rder #9689464 Message-ID: From: "Prince Spears" Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit To: "Forrest Cornett" Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 10:17:22 -0500 Dear Dalton, All the c0n trolled m e d s you search for at one place http://phillipsvobap92.angelfire.com/Index.html From eu@avis.com Fri Mar 6 07:25:49 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2999D3A6BD9 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 07:25:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -67.974 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-67.974 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_PACBELL_D=3.944, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP=1.398, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, INVALID_DATE=1.245, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001, TVD_FINGER_02=2.134, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 HcP4fCwJOFIO for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 07:25:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from adsl-68-122-24-250.dsl.irvnca.pacbell.net (adsl-68-122-24-250.dsl.irvnca.pacbell.net [68.122.24.250]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D68C73A6405 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 07:25:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from [68.122.24.250] by avis.com.s8a2.psmtp.com; Fri, 06 Mar Pacific Standard Time Message-ID: <79a4f349$535aa6b5$18883111@eu> From: To: Subject: halloa! 14 Feb Date: Fri, 06 Mar Pacific Standard Time MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Be a Valentine's Day stud! http://interjectionallyswaggerermo.blogspot.com/?id=79qxr5nq From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 6 08:06:48 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 221BF28C279 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 08:06:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.247 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.247 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.352, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 Dgu4C527UNt3 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 08:06:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8ED428C2CC for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 08:06:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LfcVZ-0002t3-5y for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:02:45 +0000 Received: from [130.76.32.69] (helo=blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LfcVS-0002sd-Vd for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:02:41 +0000 Received: from slb-av-01.boeing.com (slb-av-01.boeing.com [129.172.13.4]) by blv-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/8.14.0/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id n26G1x6e005729 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 6 Mar 2009 08:02:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from slb-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by slb-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id n26G1x4S026309; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 08:01:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwbh-11.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.55.84]) by slb-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id n26G1rUQ026116; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 08:01:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.54.35]) by XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 6 Mar 2009 08:01:59 -0800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00 Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 08:01:59 -0800 Message-ID: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A105A93278@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> In-Reply-To: <021d01c99e10$888458d0$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00 Thread-Index: AcmdcKeRcryZ/MspT8qEcavULU5jWgAA1IrwACOcU6AAAwEyYAAZQ1rg References: <110c01c99e03$c46343a0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <021d01c99e10$888458d0$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> From: "Templin, Fred L" To: "Sheng Jiang" , "Dan Wing" Cc: "IPv6 Operations" , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Mar 2009 16:01:59.0213 (UTC) FILETIME=[E16C35D0:01C99E74] Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: For the case of IPv6, I think what you are calling "DS HG" is pretty much the same as what is called "Enterprise Border Router (EBR)" and the CGN is pretty much the same as what is called: "Enterprise Border Gateway (EBG)" in VET ('draft-templin-autoconf-dhcp'). You could also check the diagrams in RANGER to see if they satisfy your needs ('draft-templin-ranger'). The CPE people might also want to check VET, which is really a superset of ISATAP. Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Sheng Jiang [mailto:shengjiang@huawei.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 8:04 PM > To: 'Dan Wing' > Cc: 'IPv6 Operations'; guoseu@huawei.com; brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com > Subject: RE: draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00 >=20 > >From: Dan Wing [mailto:dwing@cisco.com] >=20 > >> We can fix it in 01 version by putting v6ops into the draft name. > > > >Renaming a draft starts it at -00. >=20 > Thanks, we can rename it with 00 and WG name. >=20 > >Anyway, regarding your draft: it says that the CGN has to > >terminate the 6-over-4 tunnel. Couldn't some other device -- > >not necessarily the CGN -- terminate that tunnel? If so, then > >I believe your proposal is very much just a NAT44 ("CGN") and > >a 6-over-4 tunnel from the in-home gateway to some device that > >terminates the tunnel and has IPv6 Internet connectivity. > >This tunnel concentrator might belong to the ISP providing > >IPv4 service, but it might also be offered by someone else on > >the Internet (as a separate service), in which case the > >6-over-4 tunnel might actually go *across* the service > >provider's NAT44 ("CGN"). >=20 > Yes, your understanding is right. NAT44 and 6-over-4 tunnel can be splitted. They > are separate technologies. >=20 > In our proposal, we suggest to integrate NAT44 and 6-over-4 tunnel into a same > device box (CGN) so that ISPs can deploy it with a clear IPv6 migration strategy. > Here, we may extend the concept of CGN a little bit. When we talk about CGN, we are > actually referring to a carrier-grade device, which integrates NAT functions and > other integrated technologies. >=20 > Best regards, >=20 > Sheng >=20 > >> >-----Original Message----- > >> >From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@cisco.com] > >> >Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 4:55 PM > >> >To: Sheng Jiang > >> >Cc: 'IPv6 Operations'; 'Brian Carpenter' > >> >Subject: Re: Agenda issue > >> > > >> >OK. I truly wish you had put the working group moniker in the > >> >draft name (individual submission to a named working group), > >> >as it is hard to keep track of work in a working group with > >> >individual submission names. > >> > > >> >On Mar 4, 2009, at 7:00 PM, Sheng Jiang wrote: > >> > > >> >> Hi, Fred, > >> >> > >> >> We have submitted a new draft, > >> >draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00. I think > >> >> we are already on the vows agenda. Are we? If no yet, please > >> >count us > >> >> in. > >> >> Thanks. > >> >> > >> >> Best regards, > >> >> > >> >> Sheng > >> >> > >> >>> -----Original Message----- > >> >>> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org > >> >>> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker > >> >>> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 10:16 AM > >> >>> To: IPv6 Operations > >> >>> Subject: Agenda issue > >> >>> > >> >>> I have gotten a number of folks asking for time on the > >> >agenda, but I > >> >>> have a problem: > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 19268 Sep 10 05:33 > >draft-ietf-v6ops-ra- > >> >>> guard-01.txt > >> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 61870 Sep 29 08:52 draft-miyata-v6ops- > >> >>> snatpt-02.txt > >> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 48468 Oct 1 10:58 draft-endo-v6ops- > >> >>> dnsproxy-01.txt > >> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 43841 Oct 15 10:48 draft-ietf-v6ops- > >> >>> tunnel- > >> >>> security-concerns- > >> >>> 01.txt > >> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 18562 Oct 15 10:48 > >> draft-krishnan-v6ops- > >> >>> teredo-update-04.txt > >> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 53090 Oct 30 10:22 > >> >draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe- > >> >>> router-03.txt > >> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 36662 Nov 3 10:15 > >> >draft-bajko-v6ops-port- > >> >>> restricted-ipaddr-a > >> >>> ssign-02.txt > >> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 48973 Nov 3 11:06 > >> draft-luo-v6ops-6man- > >> >>> shim6-lbam-00.txt > >> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 30429 Nov 3 14:26 draft-chown-v6ops- > >> >>> rogue- > >> >>> ra-02.txt > >> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 134587 Nov 3 16:14 > >> >>> draft-thaler-v6ops- teredo-extensions-02.tx t > >> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 16462 Feb 17 14:52 > >> draft-rgaglian-v6ops- > >> >>> v6inixp-01.txt > >> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 9716 Feb 18 08:01 > >> draft-denis-v6ops-nat- > >> >>> addrsel-00.txt > >> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 41369 Feb 23 22:05 draft-bnss-v6ops- > >> >>> upnp-00.txt > >> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 19211 Mar 4 14:11 > >> >draft-vyncke-vdv-v6ops- > >> >>> conf-stats-00.txt > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> I see four new drafts post-Minneapolis. The Rogue RA and Teredo > >> >>> drafts, whose last call completed several months ago and > >> >the write-up > >> >>> is awaiting new drafts, don't have new drafts. > >> >>> > >> >>> Hello? Anyone out there? I need new drafts (cut-off date > >> is Friday) > >> >>> for anything folks expect to discuss in the WG meeting... > >> >>> > >> >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >=20 From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 6 08:26:44 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A1643A6978 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 08:26:44 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.118 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.118 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.223, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 jmD9Rm3IKHGV for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 08:26:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B56A3A680A for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 08:26:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lfcs3-0004Fn-Hb for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:25:59 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.72] (helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lfcry-0004FR-9t for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:25:56 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,315,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="140144661" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Mar 2009 16:25:53 +0000 Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (sj-core-4.cisco.com [171.68.223.138]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n26GPrmr008982; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 08:25:53 -0800 Received: from xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-221.cisco.com [128.107.191.63]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n26GPrWF001589; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 16:25:53 GMT Received: from xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.174]) by xbh-sjc-221.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 6 Mar 2009 08:25:53 -0800 Received: from [172.17.187.241] ([10.21.77.254]) by xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 6 Mar 2009 08:25:53 -0800 Cc: "'Sheng Jiang'" , "'IPv6 Operations'" , "'Brian Carpenter'" , , Message-Id: From: Fred Baker To: Dan Wing In-Reply-To: <110c01c99e03$c46343a0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00 Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 08:25:52 -0800 References: <7FAE1435-0FE1-4C23-B8BF-151D58AF5341@cisco.com> <01d401c99d74$c9600490$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <110c01c99e03$c46343a0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Mar 2009 16:25:53.0319 (UTC) FILETIME=[38376B70:01C99E78] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=630; t=1236356753; x=1237220753; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00 |Sender:=20; bh=7s1nqUN09pFLZqBa4GD9geM6HnOBb4g+1H1jufQHjFE=; b=SpD2vKFDmiGnw2ismqy0tXI1kKvgmHpOGG4+D9+ClLQpuVl8AO97frUMnP zq3nsih4zP2fM9Hg3oSesGnSdC/jFLw+LzGYaIdvcagKbS1MZJJdxosnbooJ 2k31UADlHN; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Mar 5, 2009, at 6:32 PM, Dan Wing wrote: >> For sure. We know the draft name rules. When we wrote the draft, >> we were not sure which WG it should be submitted. It seems relevant >> to both v6ops and behave. > > As a BEHAVE co-chair, I haven't seen a request for agenda time for > draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00, nor any discussion about the draft > on the BEHAVE mailing list. It may be that Brian asked me first. He was of the opinion that this is more operational in nature than about the specifics of the NAT operation, and I agreed to give it some air time. We'll see what happens to it. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 6 08:35:22 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B2BD3A657C for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 08:35:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.199 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.304, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 NQWoPDvkQJjI for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 08:35:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A31C3A6D08 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 08:35:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lfd0l-0004rI-AZ for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:34:59 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.117] (helo=sj-iport-6.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lfd0g-0004qy-1l for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Mar 2009 16:34:56 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,315,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="262627314" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Mar 2009 16:34:21 +0000 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n26GYLbt011725; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 08:34:21 -0800 Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.194]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n26GYLkG028337; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 16:34:21 GMT From: "Dan Wing" To: "'Fred Baker'" Cc: "'Sheng Jiang'" , "'IPv6 Operations'" , "'Brian Carpenter'" , , References: <7FAE1435-0FE1-4C23-B8BF-151D58AF5341@cisco.com> <01d401c99d74$c9600490$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <110c01c99e03$c46343a0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> Subject: RE: draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00 Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 08:34:21 -0800 Message-ID: <12e001c99e79$671dd6d0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 In-Reply-To: Thread-Index: AcmeeDgGDZKIAgxrS/iLs0egF5UmDQAASCPA DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=682; t=1236357261; x=1237221261; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Dan=20Wing=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00 |Sender:=20; bh=Hj0lOWmh4fC43Jn6g3l4OhACJRU7BSS8jn6IcjbStqI=; b=hHjVn0QwLZBRLF76A/Q0gfGwET6R53zxasBTkGBwnZhZi8Nwtd3d+dlptW m0M3enjB6sgBJvtYhncfrvkwWzIn/aJKTPQ5DeJAbM8gtcpZQ01slJbsSK4N xCeKxnrMO0G23AUkc5Hk2Zu9TP4dfYfUOP01pfQRGt+5OwsejqnyU=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: > >> For sure. We know the draft name rules. When we wrote the draft, > >> we were not sure which WG it should be submitted. It seems > >> relevant to both v6ops and behave. > > > > As a BEHAVE co-chair, I haven't seen a request for agenda time for > > draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00, nor any discussion about the draft > > on the BEHAVE mailing list. > > It may be that Brian asked me first. He was of the opinion that this > is more operational in nature than about the specifics of the NAT > operation, and I agreed to give it some air time. We'll see what > happens to it. That sounds fair. BEHAVE certainly has enough on its plate already. -d From daniel@explorationsacademy.org Fri Mar 6 09:16:50 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DEA73A690E; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 09:16:50 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -64.368 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-64.368 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FB_MED1CAT=3.579, FR_M_E_D_S=10.357, FUZZY_MEDICATION=2.717, HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP=1.398, J_CHICKENPOX_37=0.6, MANGLED_MEDCTN=2.3, MANGLED_MEDS=2.3, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, SARE_SPEC_LEO_MEDS=1.666, SARE_SUB_MEDS_LEO=2.222, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 dtI7uGwZc+9O; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 09:16:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from cable-static-128-103.eblcom.ch (cable-static-128-103.eblcom.ch [87.102.128.103]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E18323A6CBE; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 09:16:47 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1192na4527v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org> From: "Jerald Frey" To: "Alan Griffin" X-Originating-IP: 248.196.135.237 by 236.123.14.118; Fri, 06 Mar 2009 20:10:17 +0300 Subject: Low cost med1cations inside Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 12:17:17 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Dear Alan, All the c0n trolled m e d s you search for at one place http://floresfuhec53.angelfire.com/Index.html From k6d5dtdb074868@ambrisko.com Fri Mar 6 09:19:24 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B8683A6CBE for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 09:19:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -30.317 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-30.317 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP=1.398, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=1.778, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 ule6apj6EpDi for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 09:19:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from adsl-074-247-217-006.sip.dab.bellsouth.net (adsl-074-247-217-006.sip.dab.bellsouth.net [74.247.217.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 127FE3A68A9 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 09:19:16 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Sales Order from walmart.com From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090306171917.127FE3A68A9@core3.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 09:19:16 -0800 (PST)
We ship Worldwide! To all countries! To all destinations!
Cant see a picture? Click Here!

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please log in to www.hejbeted.cn, click on "My Account", click "Update" to edit your registration details and uncheck the "Receive Newsletter?" check box.
Or unsubscribe at http://hejbeted.cn/faq.php

Privacy Statement | Terms & Conditions | Contact

KEYWORD Ltd.
Tower Bridge Business Complex. Unit 6, B475. 926 Clements Road. London. SE93 5DG

© 2006-2008 KEYWORD, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

From liuhaijie258d@136.com Fri Mar 6 10:40:57 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B4A53A6A87 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 10:40:57 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.555 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.555 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, DNS_FROM_RFC_DSN=1.495, DRUGS_PAIN=0.01, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP=1.398, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_64=0.6, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_OBFU_HYDROCODONE=1.666, SARE_UNI=0.591, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 nYdoZy9JWERg for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 10:40:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from cable200-116-132-21.epm.net.co (cable200-116-132-21.epm.net.co [200.116.132.21]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9D2953A6816 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 10:40:49 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Re: Your Hydroc0done 0rder #686775 From: Derrick Crawford MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090306184049.9D2953A6816@core3.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 10:40:49 -0800 (PST)
Tell a friend · Download latest version See this email as a webpage

Hello!

Shipped Privately And Discreetly To Your Door!
See this email as a webpage
  We want to put a great big grin on your face in 2009. You'll be to rejoice all year.  

Unsubscribe · Lost Password · Account Settings · Help · Terms of Service · Privacy

Ottho Heldringstraat 3, 99984 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 6 11:30:25 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 065DC28C2D9 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 11:30:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.105 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 JBQISxDsyKlR for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 11:30:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E93A3A6C73 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 11:30:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lffgm-000Hnb-BV for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 06 Mar 2009 19:26:32 +0000 Received: from [209.85.198.232] (helo=rv-out-0506.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lffge-000Hm9-74 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Mar 2009 19:26:29 +0000 Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id l9so606078rvb.41 for ; Fri, 06 Mar 2009 11:26:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=1s8ZzdqTZrb1GFft3/Bx83Xck/W4mKb7kODybwMLU74=; b=dYP7g03nM/Htjv9msKj38RQOD6ULFRcvwUeRE2C/G45wKL5nlBTCMV0zitXTnE0W7Z e/h3Ul0W53bjCbmERBfFEDRiSaEy4HKjilKil+3emLrdELz37e7so7BKwCEWSMVeL2Nj 9XhyOHqgqm3HKtCYCvXYiEOeqKd6/MwYYF8Lk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Gc7KcTdWalp8MWN3B3JwgTpM7fryRkrqa3J0IFfDF8H1a8YUaKkBzjic93u/vqjJbs TZe9kgDp8Z7yzA+jzvnmdCx4PQ0CiZfHPbMeTX1/Sn5NUvK0ErAllGqzs8qtRI9dZ01+ 5Kad0QTSn0t9jBmOgPu/jP0bLT7QUoYk9YnT0= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.207.8 with SMTP id e8mr1218146wfg.278.1236367584019; Fri, 06 Mar 2009 11:26:24 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <110c01c99e03$c46343a0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> References: <7FAE1435-0FE1-4C23-B8BF-151D58AF5341@cisco.com> <01d401c99d74$c9600490$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <110c01c99e03$c46343a0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 08:26:23 +1300 Message-ID: <60fc593c0903061126v42ec8c17x70df80562730b40c@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00 From: Brian Carpenter To: Dan Wing Cc: Sheng Jiang , IPv6 Operations , Brian Carpenter , guoseu@huawei.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Dan, We're describing a scenario. Obviously, there are other similar scenarios. That's why v6ops seems like the obvious place for a first discussion, imho. Brian On 3/6/09, Dan Wing wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org > > [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sheng Jiang > > Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 1:29 AM > > To: 'Fred Baker' > > Cc: 'IPv6 Operations'; 'Brian Carpenter' > > Subject: RE: Agenda issue > > > > For sure. We know the draft name rules. When we wrote the > > draft, we were not sure > > which WG it should be submitted. It seems relevant to both > > v6ops and behave. > > As a BEHAVE co-chair, I haven't seen a request for agenda time > for draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00, nor any discussion about the > draft on the BEHAVE mailing list. > > > We can fix it in 01 version by putting v6ops into the draft name. > > Renaming a draft starts it at -00. > > > Anyway, regarding your draft: it says that the CGN has to terminate > the 6-over-4 tunnel. Couldn't some other device -- not necessarily > the CGN -- terminate that tunnel? If so, then I believe your > proposal is very much just a NAT44 ("CGN") and a 6-over-4 tunnel > from the in-home gateway to some device that terminates the > tunnel and has IPv6 Internet connectivity. This tunnel concentrator > might belong to the ISP providing IPv4 service, but it might also be > offered by someone else on the Internet (as a separate service), in > which case the 6-over-4 tunnel might actually go *across* the > service provider's NAT44 ("CGN"). > > -d > > > > Best regards, > > > > Sheng > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@cisco.com] > > >Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 4:55 PM > > >To: Sheng Jiang > > >Cc: 'IPv6 Operations'; 'Brian Carpenter' > > >Subject: Re: Agenda issue > > > > > >OK. I truly wish you had put the working group moniker in the > > >draft name (individual submission to a named working group), > > >as it is hard to keep track of work in a working group with > > >individual submission names. > > > > > >On Mar 4, 2009, at 7:00 PM, Sheng Jiang wrote: > > > > > >> Hi, Fred, > > >> > > >> We have submitted a new draft, > > >draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00. I think > > >> we are already on the vows agenda. Are we? If no yet, please > > >count us > > >> in. > > >> Thanks. > > >> > > >> Best regards, > > >> > > >> Sheng > > >> > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > >>> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org > > >>> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker > > >>> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 10:16 AM > > >>> To: IPv6 Operations > > >>> Subject: Agenda issue > > >>> > > >>> I have gotten a number of folks asking for time on the > > >agenda, but I > > >>> have a problem: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 19268 Sep 10 05:33 draft-ietf-v6ops-ra- > > >>> guard-01.txt > > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 61870 Sep 29 08:52 draft-miyata-v6ops- > > >>> snatpt-02.txt > > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 48468 Oct 1 10:58 draft-endo-v6ops- > > >>> dnsproxy-01.txt > > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 43841 Oct 15 10:48 draft-ietf-v6ops- > > >>> tunnel- > > >>> security-concerns- > > >>> 01.txt > > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 18562 Oct 15 10:48 > > draft-krishnan-v6ops- > > >>> teredo-update-04.txt > > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 53090 Oct 30 10:22 > > >draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe- > > >>> router-03.txt > > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 36662 Nov 3 10:15 > > >draft-bajko-v6ops-port- > > >>> restricted-ipaddr-a > > >>> ssign-02.txt > > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 48973 Nov 3 11:06 > > draft-luo-v6ops-6man- > > >>> shim6-lbam-00.txt > > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 30429 Nov 3 14:26 draft-chown-v6ops- > > >>> rogue- > > >>> ra-02.txt > > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 134587 Nov 3 16:14 > > >>> draft-thaler-v6ops- teredo-extensions-02.tx t > > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 16462 Feb 17 14:52 > > draft-rgaglian-v6ops- > > >>> v6inixp-01.txt > > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 9716 Feb 18 08:01 > > draft-denis-v6ops-nat- > > >>> addrsel-00.txt > > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 41369 Feb 23 22:05 draft-bnss-v6ops- > > >>> upnp-00.txt > > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 19211 Mar 4 14:11 > > >draft-vyncke-vdv-v6ops- > > >>> conf-stats-00.txt > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> I see four new drafts post-Minneapolis. The Rogue RA and Teredo > > >>> drafts, whose last call completed several months ago and > > >the write-up > > >>> is awaiting new drafts, don't have new drafts. > > >>> > > >>> Hello? Anyone out there? I need new drafts (cut-off date > > is Friday) > > >>> for anything folks expect to discuss in the WG meeting... > > >>> > > >> > > > > > > > > > From luiscristianol@agitacaolimeira.com.br Fri Mar 6 11:36:37 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B59A23A6B37 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 11:36:37 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -33.885 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-33.885 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=1.778, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 ieTs0j+aHv19 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 11:36:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from aipc.com (unknown [189.25.178.193]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A4ADB3A6A07 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 11:36:28 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Invoice from itunes.com From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090306193629.A4ADB3A6A07@core3.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 11:36:28 -0800 (PST)
We ship Worldwide! To all countries! To all destinations!
Cant see a picture? Click Here!

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please log in to www.nucrufen.cn, click on "My Account", click "Update" to edit your registration details and uncheck the "Receive Newsletter?" check box.
Or unsubscribe at http://nucrufen.cn/faq.php

Privacy Statement | Terms & Conditions | Contact

KEYWORD Ltd.
Tower Bridge Business Complex. Unit 4, B188. 174 Clements Road. London. SE75 4DG

© 2006-2008 KEYWORD, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 6 13:25:12 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07FCC3A676A for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 13:25:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.247 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.247 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.352, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 tbTG9Lys9Tl3 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 13:25:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 382EA3A659C for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 13:25:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LfhVG-0000L5-62 for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 06 Mar 2009 21:22:46 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.117] (helo=sj-iport-6.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LfhVB-0000KN-59 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Mar 2009 21:22:43 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,316,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="262814309" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Mar 2009 21:22:40 +0000 Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (sj-core-4.cisco.com [171.68.223.138]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n26LMeV6011356; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 13:22:40 -0800 Received: from dwingwxp01 ([10.32.240.194]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n26LMd8i021589; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 21:22:39 GMT From: "Dan Wing" To: "'Brian Carpenter'" Cc: "'Sheng Jiang'" , "'IPv6 Operations'" , "'Brian Carpenter'" , References: <7FAE1435-0FE1-4C23-B8BF-151D58AF5341@cisco.com> <01d401c99d74$c9600490$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <110c01c99e03$c46343a0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <60fc593c0903061126v42ec8c17x70df80562730b40c@mail.gmail.com> Subject: RE: draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00 Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 13:22:39 -0800 Message-ID: <142501c99ea1$ada38d70$c2f0200a@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 In-Reply-To: <60fc593c0903061126v42ec8c17x70df80562730b40c@mail.gmail.com> Thread-Index: AcmekXP6/KXQLooWTqOFqtyYyNFlJgAEAeTA DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=5731; t=1236374560; x=1237238560; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Dan=20Wing=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00 |Sender:=20; bh=i/I+mZgRfmrmyWBe3VjSPyLYokCNAtbIDkZJG1rcyps=; b=abdW/2ycFdmVgwHKWp1VdMw/4hOvW2WVhfrjIagh7Lhv0ebNNQk0Cer/2d EKj918O+hhVmewuIIo6RJVsD5yk8X9zt/hkMo26n+tFa/KAIrhyV9Dii92EU LQu+Wf1r80; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 11:26 AM > To: Dan Wing > Cc: Sheng Jiang; IPv6 Operations; Brian Carpenter; guoseu@huawei.com > Subject: Re: draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00 > > Dan, > > We're describing a scenario. Obviously, there are other similar > scenarios. I had asked my question learn if there is benefit to have the ISP's NAT44 also terminate the IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnel. > That's why v6ops seems like the obvious place for a > first discussion, imho. I concur. -d > Brian > > On 3/6/09, Dan Wing wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org > > > [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sheng Jiang > > > Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 1:29 AM > > > To: 'Fred Baker' > > > Cc: 'IPv6 Operations'; 'Brian Carpenter' > > > Subject: RE: Agenda issue > > > > > > For sure. We know the draft name rules. When we wrote the > > > draft, we were not sure > > > which WG it should be submitted. It seems relevant to both > > > v6ops and behave. > > > > As a BEHAVE co-chair, I haven't seen a request for agenda time > > for draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00, nor any discussion about the > > draft on the BEHAVE mailing list. > > > > > We can fix it in 01 version by putting v6ops into the draft name. > > > > Renaming a draft starts it at -00. > > > > > > Anyway, regarding your draft: it says that the CGN has to > terminate > > the 6-over-4 tunnel. Couldn't some other device -- not necessarily > > the CGN -- terminate that tunnel? If so, then I believe your > > proposal is very much just a NAT44 ("CGN") and a 6-over-4 tunnel > > from the in-home gateway to some device that terminates the > > tunnel and has IPv6 Internet connectivity. This tunnel > concentrator > > might belong to the ISP providing IPv4 service, but it > might also be > > offered by someone else on the Internet (as a separate service), in > > which case the 6-over-4 tunnel might actually go *across* the > > service provider's NAT44 ("CGN"). > > > > -d > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Sheng > > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > > >From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@cisco.com] > > > >Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 4:55 PM > > > >To: Sheng Jiang > > > >Cc: 'IPv6 Operations'; 'Brian Carpenter' > > > >Subject: Re: Agenda issue > > > > > > > >OK. I truly wish you had put the working group moniker in the > > > >draft name (individual submission to a named working group), > > > >as it is hard to keep track of work in a working group with > > > >individual submission names. > > > > > > > >On Mar 4, 2009, at 7:00 PM, Sheng Jiang wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hi, Fred, > > > >> > > > >> We have submitted a new draft, > > > >draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00. I think > > > >> we are already on the vows agenda. Are we? If no yet, please > > > >count us > > > >> in. > > > >> Thanks. > > > >> > > > >> Best regards, > > > >> > > > >> Sheng > > > >> > > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > > >>> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org > > > >>> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker > > > >>> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 10:16 AM > > > >>> To: IPv6 Operations > > > >>> Subject: Agenda issue > > > >>> > > > >>> I have gotten a number of folks asking for time on the > > > >agenda, but I > > > >>> have a problem: > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 19268 Sep 10 05:33 > draft-ietf-v6ops-ra- > > > >>> guard-01.txt > > > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 61870 Sep 29 08:52 > draft-miyata-v6ops- > > > >>> snatpt-02.txt > > > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 48468 Oct 1 10:58 > draft-endo-v6ops- > > > >>> dnsproxy-01.txt > > > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 43841 Oct 15 10:48 > draft-ietf-v6ops- > > > >>> tunnel- > > > >>> security-concerns- > > > >>> 01.txt > > > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 18562 Oct 15 10:48 > > > draft-krishnan-v6ops- > > > >>> teredo-update-04.txt > > > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 53090 Oct 30 10:22 > > > >draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe- > > > >>> router-03.txt > > > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 36662 Nov 3 10:15 > > > >draft-bajko-v6ops-port- > > > >>> restricted-ipaddr-a > > > >>> ssign-02.txt > > > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 48973 Nov 3 11:06 > > > draft-luo-v6ops-6man- > > > >>> shim6-lbam-00.txt > > > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 30429 Nov 3 14:26 > draft-chown-v6ops- > > > >>> rogue- > > > >>> ra-02.txt > > > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 134587 Nov 3 16:14 > > > >>> draft-thaler-v6ops- teredo-extensions-02.tx t > > > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 16462 Feb 17 14:52 > > > draft-rgaglian-v6ops- > > > >>> v6inixp-01.txt > > > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 9716 Feb 18 08:01 > > > draft-denis-v6ops-nat- > > > >>> addrsel-00.txt > > > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 41369 Feb 23 22:05 > draft-bnss-v6ops- > > > >>> upnp-00.txt > > > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 19211 Mar 4 14:11 > > > >draft-vyncke-vdv-v6ops- > > > >>> conf-stats-00.txt > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> I see four new drafts post-Minneapolis. The Rogue RA > and Teredo > > > >>> drafts, whose last call completed several months ago and > > > >the write-up > > > >>> is awaiting new drafts, don't have new drafts. > > > >>> > > > >>> Hello? Anyone out there? I need new drafts (cut-off date > > > is Friday) > > > >>> for anything folks expect to discuss in the WG meeting... > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 6 14:31:07 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A2213A685D for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 14:31:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.895 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 yJK2rbu6oZjR for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 14:31:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39B1D3A6825 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 14:31:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LfiVq-0004cn-Nx for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 06 Mar 2009 22:27:26 +0000 Received: from [64.102.122.149] (helo=rtp-iport-2.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LfiVl-0004c3-6b for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 06 Mar 2009 22:27:23 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,316,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="39149655" Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Mar 2009 22:27:18 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n26MRHRE029149 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 17:27:17 -0500 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n26MRHGJ005582 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 22:27:17 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.40]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 6 Mar 2009 17:27:17 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 17:27:17 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <021d01c99e10$888458d0$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Thread-Index: AcmdcKeRcryZ/MspT8qEcavULU5jWgAA1IrwACOcU6AAAwEyYAAmvCPA References: <110c01c99e03$c46343a0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <021d01c99e10$888458d0$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" To: "IPv6 Operations" Cc: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" , "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Mar 2009 22:27:17.0843 (UTC) FILETIME=[B5333230:01C99EAA] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1160; t=1236378438; x=1237242438; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)=22=20 |Subject:=20Posted=20a=20new=20copy=20of=20CPE=20Rtr=20draf t |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22IPv6=20Operations=22=20; bh=THZDG6d3dq5BEDzaMIXfCg0KbzoRbSGvIEcJUplvFUE=; b=mGPhB3XfIoBXheoHfgiYG+owiRjBrwb7TJomFtgGvUTpYKhUOOmLWgjIUb pPf5W7N5KWElBZ1a08aIaGpiCk2COPAvqg/BPdRWMovf2LQlRwhdxhLW/ZzK vBTEb8s1yB; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=shemant@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04.txt Sorry, we forgot that the -00 submission for I-D's was March 4th, 2009 and thus did not release a draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-00.txt. As folks may know this draft is a work item of the v6ops WG as of the Minneapolis IETF during November 2008. Soon as IETF opens up -00 submission again during the March IETF, we will submit the -00 version of this draft. We didn't want to wait any longer to release this new version so that folks could get a few weeks of review before IETF 74. Gross items taken care of in this version. 1. Added DS-Lite section to the draft. 2. Added text to cater to Brian Carpenter's comment that the CPE Rtr should not hard code it's data forwarding table to existing 200::/3 prefix. 3. Added more explanatory text to strong host model portion of the document to address question raised by Dave Thaler at the mike during IETF 73. 4. Augmented the Abstract to cater to comments from the mike during IETF 73 as to how other task forces may use this document. 5. Added ND Proxy section catering to comments from Teemu. Hemant & Wes From chaiwat@wonjinco.com Fri Mar 6 16:44:06 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D87313A6900; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 16:44:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -48.596 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-48.596 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DRUGS_ANXIETY=0.01, DRUGS_ANXIETY_OBFU=1, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, FRT_VALIUM1=10.357, FRT_VALIUM2=2.643, FR_M_E_D_S=10.357, FUZZY_VLIUM=0.001, HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP=1.398, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_CPE=0.5, HOST_EQ_CPE=0.979, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6, MANGLED_MEDS=2.3, MANGLED_VALIUM=2.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_OBFU_PART_IUM=0.978, SARE_OBFU_VALIUM=1.666, TT_OBSCURED_VALIUM=0.913, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 UxueTulDk1Hx; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 16:44:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from cpe-76-188-244-167.neo.res.rr.com (cpe-76-188-244-167.neo.res.rr.com [76.188.244.167]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E91CD3A6AD0; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 16:44:01 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <719sp7256lowpan-request@lists.ietf.org> From: "Yolanda Emery" <6lowpan-request@lists.ietf.org> To: "Raul Knight" <6lowpan-request@lists.ietf.org> X-Originating-IP: 192.104.137.32 by 95.80.143.192; Fri, 06 Mar 2009 18:35:34 -0600 Subject: Re: Your Val1um 0rder #431067 Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2009 19:44:34 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Dear Eldon, All the c0n trolled m e d s you search for at one place http://perrybajiv68.angelfire.com/Index.html From lpvzj@alc-mg.com Fri Mar 6 20:07:21 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F4673A683D for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 20:07:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -48.672 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-48.672 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=1.778, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RDNS_NONE=0.1, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 wOPvAJUZZFv2 for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 20:07:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from alaparrilla.com (unknown [58.114.186.34]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 987B43A685F for ; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 20:07:13 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Check out hot deals From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090307040714.987B43A685F@core3.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 20:07:13 -0800 (PST)
We ship Worldwide! To all countries! To all destinations!
Cant see a picture? Click Here!

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please log in to www.enjoyproud.com, click on "My Account", click "Update" to edit your registration details and uncheck the "Receive Newsletter?" check box.
Or unsubscribe at http://enjoyproud.com/faq.php

Privacy Statement | Terms & Conditions | Contact

KEYWORD Ltd.
Tower Bridge Business Complex. Unit 8, B666. 470 Clements Road. London. SE02 1DG

© 2006-2008 KEYWORD, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

From hayes3@smartforce.com Fri Mar 6 22:47:24 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF3B63A6A8C; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 22:47:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -75.464 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-75.464 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_95=3, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, GB_ROLEX=5, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_RU=0.595, HOST_EQ_RU=0.875, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 cqomLu-jZ3gM; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 22:47:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from host-95-189-141-228.pppoe.omsknet.ru (host-95-189-141-228.pppoe.omsknet.ru [95.189.141.228]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1AE4C3A693F; Fri, 6 Mar 2009 22:47:12 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: X-Originating-IP: 73.160.215.111 by 20.31.119.110; Sat, 07 Mar 2009 08:39:43 +0200 To: "Jeri Eldridge" From: "Deon Larkin" Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2009 01:47:43 -0500 Subject: Patek Phillipe reps better than originals Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Money is tight, times are hard. Christmas is over. Time to get a new Watch! http://edwardsfopub81.angelfire.com/Index.html At Exqu1site Reps you will find exactly the watch you're looking for, at prices that will make you blink twice. That's right! Here you can get a Rolex, a Breitling, a Tag or pretty much every fine brand timepiece for less than ten percent their original price! http://edwardsfopub81.angelfire.com/Index.html Enjoy the fastest shipping around, paired with secure billing, incredible customer service and the largest online selection of fine reproduction timepieces only at Exqu1site Reps, of course! From goodman@tiny.net Sat Mar 7 00:16:28 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 007C03A6AEA; Sat, 7 Mar 2009 00:16:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -74.847 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-74.847 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, GB_ROLEX=5, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX=1.666, SARE_SUB_PERFECT=0.725, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 9Wpk74NshcZM; Sat, 7 Mar 2009 00:16:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from ppp-58-9-251-25.revip2.asianet.co.th (ppp-58-9-251-25.revip2.asianet.co.th [58.9.251.25]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0C0ED3A6AF1; Sat, 7 Mar 2009 00:16:23 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: X-Originating-IP: 0.96.1.73 by 64.155.82.186; Sat, 07 Mar 2009 06:08:54 -0200 To: "Janine Jackson" From: "Melody Maynard" Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2009 03:16:54 -0500 Subject: Rep watch is a perfect gift Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Loving yourself is the first step in loving life. And what better way to do it, than by getting yourself a fine designer watch? http://jameshiqun61.angelfire.com/Index.html Exqu1site Reps has it all: Rolex, Cartier, Tag Heuer, Breitling, and many more, for a fraction of the price of an original watch. And don't forget: when you order two watches, you get an extra 15 percent discount over our already low prices! http://jameshiqun61.angelfire.com/Index.html Don't believe me? Click here to enter Exqu1site Reps right now, and see it with your very own eyes! From novaktxkcqs@amocofcu.org Sat Mar 7 03:44:32 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9513F3A67BD for ; Sat, 7 Mar 2009 03:44:32 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -20.835 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-20.835 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_BR=0.955, HOST_EQ_BR=1.295, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=1.778, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 dukTEXKY6ZSb for ; Sat, 7 Mar 2009 03:44:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from 201-75-247-15-am.cpe.vivax.com.br (201-75-247-15-am.cpe.vivax.com.br [201.75.247.15]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CB6B43A682D for ; Sat, 7 Mar 2009 03:44:17 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Sales Receipt from Amazon From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090307114418.CB6B43A682D@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 03:44:17 -0800 (PST)
We ship Worldwide! To all countries! To all destinations!
Cant see a picture? Click Here!

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please log in to www.extracoy.com, click on "My Account", click "Update" to edit your registration details and uncheck the "Receive Newsletter?" check box.
Or unsubscribe at http://extracoy.com/faq.php

Privacy Statement | Terms & Conditions | Contact

KEYWORD Ltd.
Tower Bridge Business Complex. Unit 3, B359. 830 Clements Road. London. SE39 7DG

© 2006-2008 KEYWORD, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

From mattshrake@painewetzel.com Sat Mar 7 08:54:23 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DB0B3A680F; Sat, 7 Mar 2009 08:54:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -74.927 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-74.927 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_DYNAMIC_SPLIT_IP=3.493, HELO_EQ_DYNAMIC=1.144, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 XGTwFQtFGrFM; Sat, 7 Mar 2009 08:54:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from 224.85-84-17.dynamic.clientes.euskaltel.es (224.85-84-17.dynamic.clientes.euskaltel.es [85.84.17.224]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 811723A697D; Sat, 7 Mar 2009 08:54:20 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <020hvt582807v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org> From: "Renee Baxter" To: "Art West" X-Originating-IP: 208.212.230.151 by 64.211.134.250; Sat, 07 Mar 2009 17:45:51 +0100 Subject: You and a Franck Muller watch Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2009 11:54:51 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit What's the fastest way to a lover's heart? A beautiful and stylish designer watch! http://floreshiqih35.angelfire.com/Index.html Visit Exqu1site Reps today and get a terrific designer watch imitation for a uniquely low price. Our watches are the most sought-after in the market, offering you the best performance and unsurpassed quality while allowing you to choose from hundreds of models within dozens of brands! http://floreshiqih35.angelfire.com/Index.html Only Exqu1site Reps offers you unsurpassed quality and award-winning customer service. So, what are you waiting for? From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sat Mar 7 14:11:16 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DC913A67AA for ; Sat, 7 Mar 2009 14:11:16 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.384 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.384 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.890, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 2JF34JTCEL1p for ; Sat, 7 Mar 2009 14:11:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B1EF3A672F for ; Sat, 7 Mar 2009 14:11:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lg4eV-000GQ5-OW for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Sat, 07 Mar 2009 22:05:51 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.117] (helo=sj-iport-6.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lg4eG-000GPX-MJ for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 07 Mar 2009 22:05:46 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,320,1233532800"; d="scan'208,217";a="263269680" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Mar 2009 22:05:33 +0000 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n27M5XVq008140 for ; Sat, 7 Mar 2009 14:05:33 -0800 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n27M5X8F023160 for ; Sat, 7 Mar 2009 22:05:33 GMT Received: from xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.187]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 7 Mar 2009 14:05:33 -0800 Received: from stealth-10-32-244-222.cisco.com ([10.32.244.222]) by xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 7 Mar 2009 14:05:33 -0800 Message-Id: <74DB47BE-6E0E-418C-B234-AFAB932B7DE4@cisco.com> From: Fred Baker To: IPv6 Operations Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-70-458294633 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Notetakers and scribes Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 14:05:32 -0800 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Mar 2009 22:05:33.0418 (UTC) FILETIME=[D61D7CA0:01C99F70] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=4943; t=1236463533; x=1237327533; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20 |Subject:=20Notetakers=20and=20scribes |Sender:=20; bh=/ZmR9Bw7m8T9XRV4znXcWfcFpBwpINkJkL7fI3Fi+m8=; b=IRSSFV0XKRnkAhALZWkkwz98vSOHq00pENT8mDlLrT8KXxHluJ1CNxKAbu A5pIhrJvRauxRBNoCKBSosJuuzQK9YSnSSrnX3NgmSTyJZdB/PorCZqkgAW3 egCY8VIy4i; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: --Apple-Mail-70-458294633 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This is an effort to get a jabber scribe and a notetaker in advance of =20= the meeting. We=92ll need ones for of Monday and another for Friday, so if you feel =20= like contributing, please volunteer!= --Apple-Mail-70-458294633 Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This is an effort to get a jabber scribe and a = notetaker in advance of the meeting.

 

We=92ll need ones for of Monday and another = for Friday, so if you feel like contributing, please = volunteer!

= --Apple-Mail-70-458294633-- From wilfried.drijboomf@telus.com Sat Mar 7 15:56:24 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60C983A6AC5; Sat, 7 Mar 2009 15:56:24 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -68.086 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-68.086 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_95=3, FH_HELO_EQ_CHARTER=2.175, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HOST_EQ_CHARTER=1.295, HOST_EQ_DHCP=1.295, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 i9k+SxV8Ff9V; Sat, 7 Mar 2009 15:56:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from 75-131-86-43.dhcp.thbd.la.charter.com (75-131-86-43.dhcp.thbd.la.charter.com [75.131.86.43]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3CB423A677C; Sat, 7 Mar 2009 15:56:19 -0800 (PST) From: "Julian Busby" To: "Delmar Herring" Subject: Emporio Armani cheaper than you could imagine! Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2009 18:56:55 -0500 Message-ID: <270Xhqqdd.x602I0185aaa-archive@lists.ietf.org> Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit There's no time like the present, and isn't it time you got yourself a beautiful designer watch? http://sandersvezic5.angelfire.com/Index.html So, come visit Exqu1site Reps, the famous watch-portal where thousands of satisfied customers have already found that superb imitation time piece for just a few hundred dollars. http://sandersvezic5.angelfire.com/Index.html Don't delay your pleasure: our incredible watch collection awaits you at Exqu1site Reps, so come visit us now! From jfletchernn@amlabel.com Sat Mar 7 20:30:48 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED47628C0E6 for ; Sat, 7 Mar 2009 20:30:48 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -45.639 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-45.639 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=1.778, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 LRvKQjvMTuBI for ; Sat, 7 Mar 2009 20:30:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from aisidi.com (unknown [118.68.96.230]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 66BB03A6A75 for ; Sat, 7 Mar 2009 20:30:39 -0800 (PST) To: Subject: Check out hot deals From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090308043040.66BB03A6A75@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 20:30:39 -0800 (PST)
We ship Worldwide! To all countries! To all destinations!
Cant see a picture? Click Here!

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please log in to www.chicbold.com, click on "My Account", click "Update" to edit your registration details and uncheck the "Receive Newsletter?" check box.
Or unsubscribe at http://chicbold.com/faq.php

Privacy Statement | Terms & Conditions | Contact

KEYWORD Ltd.
Tower Bridge Business Complex. Unit 0, B916. 420 Clements Road. London. SE19 6DG

© 2006-2008 KEYWORD, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

From rjb@dobil.com Sun Mar 8 04:09:31 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63BF23A6AC9; Sun, 8 Mar 2009 04:09:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -87.36 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-87.36 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, HELO_EQ_RU=0.595, HOST_EQ_RU=0.875, HOST_EQ_STATIC=1.172, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 Fgh6-0udgOPz; Sun, 8 Mar 2009 04:09:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from oska.static.corbina.ru (oska.static.corbina.ru [78.107.233.89]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id DE4FB3A6A48; Sun, 8 Mar 2009 04:09:23 -0700 (PDT) To: "Kristen Hart" Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2009 07:09:59 -0500 Subject: Looking for a rep watch? Message-ID: From: "Kerry Penn" Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Money is tight, times are hard. Christmas is over. Time to get a new Watch! http://gonzalezpilaq96.angelfire.com/Index.html Take advantage of Exqu1site Reps tremendous specials, and get yourself a superb designer watch imitation for just a couple of hundred bucks. Plus an extra 15 percent discount when you get two time pieces in the same purchase! http://gonzalezpilaq96.angelfire.com/Index.html Check out our extensive inventory and enjoy the fastest shipping available online! See you at Exqu1site Reps! From bibbib77@ms55.hinet.net Sun Mar 8 12:45:32 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67AFB28C104; Sun, 8 Mar 2009 12:45:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -70.146 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-70.146 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL=0.692, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_DYNAMIC_SPLIT_IP=3.493, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HELO_EQ_DYNAMIC=1.144, HELO_EQ_IP_ADDR=1.119, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 nknWHw4VDBVX; Sun, 8 Mar 2009 12:45:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 77.47.108.3.dynamic.cablesurf.de (77.47.108.3.dynamic.cablesurf.de [77.47.108.3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id F1FD43A6915; Sun, 8 Mar 2009 12:45:27 -0700 (PDT) From: "Miguel Moses" To: "Sammy Jeffers" Subject: IWC better than you could imagine! Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2009 15:46:03 -0500 Message-ID: <80Kpfe.s23O2745aaa-archive@lists.ietf.org> Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit There are things in life that seem unattainable. Owning a fine watch doesn't have to be one of them. http://griffinfoxym25.angelfire.com/Index.html Take advantage of Exqu1site Reps tremendous specials, and get yourself a superb designer watch imitation for just a couple of hundred bucks. Plus an extra 15 percent discount when you get two time pieces in the same purchase! http://griffinfoxym25.angelfire.com/Index.html Click here now and enjoy our fast shipping and safe billing method while getting the most realistic look on a fine reproduction timepiece. From jeffr@activeinfosystems.com Sun Mar 8 13:31:58 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88E5528C0E7 for ; Sun, 8 Mar 2009 13:31:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.171 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.171 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_CHARTER=2.175, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HOST_EQ_CHARTER=1.295, HOST_EQ_DHCP=1.295, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=1.778, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 IpJBIkMnjN+3 for ; Sun, 8 Mar 2009 13:31:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 66-188-81-228.dhcp.mdsn.wi.charter.com (66-188-81-228.dhcp.mdsn.wi.charter.com [66.188.81.228]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8F1053A6860 for ; Sun, 8 Mar 2009 13:31:53 -0700 (PDT) To: Subject: Sales Order from walmart.com From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090308203155.8F1053A6860@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 13:31:53 -0700 (PDT)
We ship Worldwide! To all countries! To all destinations!
Cant see a picture? Click Here!

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please log in to www.yulecrisp.com, click on "My Account", click "Update" to edit your registration details and uncheck the "Receive Newsletter?" check box.
Or unsubscribe at http://yulecrisp.com/faq.php

Privacy Statement | Terms & Conditions | Contact

KEYWORD Ltd.
Tower Bridge Business Complex. Unit 7, B257. 525 Clements Road. London. SE79 9DG

© 2006-2008 KEYWORD, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

From omar.engineeringo@afpc.net.sy Sun Mar 8 13:49:26 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75D743A6ABF for ; Sun, 8 Mar 2009 13:49:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -12.595 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.595 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=1.778, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 P1LaS3jCtVbD for ; Sun, 8 Mar 2009 13:49:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lns-bzn-31-82-252-219-249.adsl.proxad.net (lns-bzn-31-82-252-219-249.adsl.proxad.net [82.252.219.249]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 798063A6A8E for ; Sun, 8 Mar 2009 13:49:21 -0700 (PDT) To: Subject: Invoice from itunes.com From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090308204923.798063A6A8E@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 13:49:21 -0700 (PDT)
We ship Worldwide! To all countries! To all destinations!
Cant see a picture? Click Here!

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, please log in to www.yulecrisp.com, click on "My Account", click "Update" to edit your registration details and uncheck the "Receive Newsletter?" check box.
Or unsubscribe at http://yulecrisp.com/faq.php

Privacy Statement | Terms & Conditions | Contact

KEYWORD Ltd.
Tower Bridge Business Complex. Unit 5, B177. 564 Clements Road. London. SE55 9DG

© 2006-2008 KEYWORD, Ltd. All Rights Reserved

From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sun Mar 8 19:56:48 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 724703A6B63 for ; Sun, 8 Mar 2009 19:56:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.085 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.085 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 ot2kV4p-1V49 for ; Sun, 8 Mar 2009 19:56:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 289E33A6B5A for ; Sun, 8 Mar 2009 19:56:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LgVah-000PBT-GR for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 09 Mar 2009 02:51:43 +0000 Received: from [119.145.14.67] (helo=szxga04-in.huawei.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LgVab-000PB0-IH for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Mar 2009 02:51:40 +0000 Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KG7009F8XA0US@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Mar 2009 10:51:36 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.1.24]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KG7009GKXA0RK@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Mar 2009 10:51:36 +0800 (CST) Received: from J66104 ([10.111.12.219]) by szxml04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0KG700J1ZX9ZFD@szxml04-in.huawei.com> for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Mar 2009 10:51:36 +0800 (CST) Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 10:51:35 +0800 From: Sheng Jiang Subject: RE: draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00 In-reply-to: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A105A93278@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> To: "'Templin, Fred L'" , 'Dan Wing' Cc: 'IPv6 Operations' , guoseu@huawei.com, brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Message-id: <008001c9a061$f662ed00$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Thread-index: AcmdcKeRcryZ/MspT8qEcavULU5jWgAA1IrwACOcU6AAAwEyYAAZQ1rgAHtvInA= Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Hi, Templin, Yes, the mechanisms described in VET are possible to be used in our proposed incremental v4/v6 transition CGN. We would mention it when we resubmit our draft with v6ops in the draft name later. Many thanks and best regards, Sheng >-----Original Message----- >From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com] >Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 12:02 AM >To: Sheng Jiang; Dan Wing >Cc: IPv6 Operations; guoseu@huawei.com; brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com >Subject: RE: draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00 > >For the case of IPv6, I think what you are calling "DS HG" is >pretty much the same as what is called "Enterprise Border >Router (EBR)" and the CGN is pretty much the same as what is >called: "Enterprise Border Gateway (EBG)" in VET >('draft-templin-autoconf-dhcp'). >You could also check the diagrams in RANGER to see if they >satisfy your needs ('draft-templin-ranger'). > >The CPE people might also want to check VET, which is really a >superset of ISATAP. > >Fred >fred.l.templin@boeing.com > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sheng Jiang [mailto:shengjiang@huawei.com] >> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 8:04 PM >> To: 'Dan Wing' >> Cc: 'IPv6 Operations'; guoseu@huawei.com; brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com >> Subject: RE: draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00 >> >> >From: Dan Wing [mailto:dwing@cisco.com] >> >> >> We can fix it in 01 version by putting v6ops into the draft name. >> > >> >Renaming a draft starts it at -00. >> >> Thanks, we can rename it with 00 and WG name. >> >> >Anyway, regarding your draft: it says that the CGN has to >terminate >> >the 6-over-4 tunnel. Couldn't some other device -- not necessarily >> >the CGN -- terminate that tunnel? If so, then I believe your >> >proposal is very much just a NAT44 ("CGN") and a 6-over-4 >tunnel from >> >the in-home gateway to some device that terminates the >tunnel and has >> >IPv6 Internet connectivity. >> >This tunnel concentrator might belong to the ISP providing >> >IPv4 service, but it might also be offered by someone else on the >> >Internet (as a separate service), in which case the >> >6-over-4 tunnel might actually go *across* the service provider's >> >NAT44 ("CGN"). >> >> Yes, your understanding is right. NAT44 and 6-over-4 tunnel can be >splitted. They >> are separate technologies. >> >> In our proposal, we suggest to integrate NAT44 and 6-over-4 tunnel >into a same >> device box (CGN) so that ISPs can deploy it with a clear IPv6 >migration strategy. >> Here, we may extend the concept of CGN a little bit. When we talk >about CGN, we are >> actually referring to a carrier-grade device, which integrates NAT >functions and >> other integrated technologies. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Sheng >> >> >> >-----Original Message----- >> >> >From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@cisco.com] >> >> >Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 4:55 PM >> >> >To: Sheng Jiang >> >> >Cc: 'IPv6 Operations'; 'Brian Carpenter' >> >> >Subject: Re: Agenda issue >> >> > >> >> >OK. I truly wish you had put the working group moniker in the >> >> >draft name (individual submission to a named working >group), as it >> >> >is hard to keep track of work in a working group with individual >> >> >submission names. >> >> > >> >> >On Mar 4, 2009, at 7:00 PM, Sheng Jiang wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Hi, Fred, >> >> >> >> >> >> We have submitted a new draft, >> >> >draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00. I think >> >> >> we are already on the vows agenda. Are we? If no yet, please >> >> >count us >> >> >> in. >> >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> >> >> Sheng >> >> >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >> >>> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org >> >> >>> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker >> >> >>> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 10:16 AM >> >> >>> To: IPv6 Operations >> >> >>> Subject: Agenda issue >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I have gotten a number of folks asking for time on the >> >> >agenda, but I >> >> >>> have a problem: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 19268 Sep 10 05:33 >> >draft-ietf-v6ops-ra- >> >> >>> guard-01.txt >> >> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 61870 Sep 29 08:52 >draft-miyata-v6ops- >> >> >>> snatpt-02.txt >> >> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 48468 Oct 1 10:58 >draft-endo-v6ops- >> >> >>> dnsproxy-01.txt >> >> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 43841 Oct 15 10:48 >draft-ietf-v6ops- >> >> >>> tunnel- >> >> >>> security-concerns- >> >> >>> 01.txt >> >> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 18562 Oct 15 10:48 >> >> draft-krishnan-v6ops- >> >> >>> teredo-update-04.txt >> >> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 53090 Oct 30 10:22 >> >> >draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe- >> >> >>> router-03.txt >> >> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 36662 Nov 3 10:15 >> >> >draft-bajko-v6ops-port- >> >> >>> restricted-ipaddr-a >> >> >>> ssign-02.txt >> >> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 48973 Nov 3 11:06 >> >> draft-luo-v6ops-6man- >> >> >>> shim6-lbam-00.txt >> >> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 30429 Nov 3 14:26 >draft-chown-v6ops- >> >> >>> rogue- >> >> >>> ra-02.txt >> >> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 134587 Nov 3 16:14 >> >> >>> draft-thaler-v6ops- teredo-extensions-02.tx t >> >> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 16462 Feb 17 14:52 >> >> draft-rgaglian-v6ops- >> >> >>> v6inixp-01.txt >> >> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 9716 Feb 18 08:01 >> >> draft-denis-v6ops-nat- >> >> >>> addrsel-00.txt >> >> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 41369 Feb 23 22:05 >draft-bnss-v6ops- >> >> >>> upnp-00.txt >> >> >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 19211 Mar 4 14:11 >> >> >draft-vyncke-vdv-v6ops- >> >> >>> conf-stats-00.txt >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I see four new drafts post-Minneapolis. The Rogue RA >and Teredo >> >> >>> drafts, whose last call completed several months ago and >> >> >the write-up >> >> >>> is awaiting new drafts, don't have new drafts. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Hello? Anyone out there? I need new drafts (cut-off date >> >> is Friday) >> >> >>> for anything folks expect to discuss in the WG meeting... >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > >> > From ockx@amebacctv.com Sun Mar 8 22:36:26 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45A5E3A69DE for ; Sun, 8 Mar 2009 22:36:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -27.859 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-27.859 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_UNI=0.591, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 WPlb3ErxJHLx for ; Sun, 8 Mar 2009 22:36:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 007-jamesbond.com (unknown [122.173.75.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 79EB03A6868 for ; Sun, 8 Mar 2009 22:36:15 -0700 (PDT) To: Subject: from v6ops-archive@ietf.org From: Josie Bragg MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090309053616.79EB03A6868@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 22:36:15 -0700 (PDT)
Tell a friend · Download latest version See this email as a webpage

Hello!

Shipped Privately And Discreetly To Your Door!
See this email as a webpage
  We want to put a great big grin on your face in 2009. You'll be to rejoice all year.  

Unsubscribe · Lost Password · Account Settings · Help · Terms of Service · Privacy

Ottho Heldringstraat 0, 56766 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
From gwen_ingram@cable.comcast.com Mon Mar 9 01:02:04 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90AEC3A6B8C; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 01:02:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -80.921 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-80.921 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, GB_ROLEX=5, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX=1.666, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 DrMePE0KXvAH; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 01:02:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cpc1-nott4-0-0-cust228.nott.cable.ntl.com (cpc1-nott4-0-0-cust228.nott.cable.ntl.com [80.6.120.229]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7BCBC3A6820; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 01:02:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 205.208.128.131 by 232.0.60.2; Mon, 09 Mar 2009 10:59:36 +0200 Message-ID: From: "Ramona Beck" To: "Gabrielle Laird" Subject: March promo on watches Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 04:02:36 -0500 Loving yourself is the first step in loving life. And what better way to do it, than by getting yourself a fine designer watch? http://phillipsjosav39.angelfire.com/Index.html Exqu1site Reps has it all: Rolex, Cartier, Tag Heuer, Breitling, and many more, for a fraction of the price of an original watch. And don't forget: when you order two watches, you get an extra 15 percent discount over our already low prices! http://phillipsjosav39.angelfire.com/Index.html Don't delay your pleasure: our incredible watch collection awaits you at Exqu1site Reps, so come visit us now! From jason_zhang@analysys.com.cn Mon Mar 9 06:25:39 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A239E28C201 for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 06:25:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -38.833 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-38.833 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_80=2, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_DYNAMIC_DIALIN=3.384, HELO_EQ_DIP_DIALIN=1.573, HOST_EQ_DIP_TDIAL=2.144, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_16=1.526, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_3=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 fXq2RRGEjQtz for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 06:25:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p4FDC7C2F.dip.t-dialin.net (p4FDC7C2F.dip.t-dialin.net [79.220.124.47]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CA73C28C20A for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 06:25:28 -0700 (PDT) To: Subject: High-quality preparations at low cost From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090309132528.CA73C28C20A@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 06:25:28 -0700 (PDT)
Welcome!!!

Gain wellness and happiness you have long wished for!



Windows Live Customer Support | Hotmail Support FAQs | Newsletter feedback

Microsoft Corporation, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052 As a Windows Live member you have received this e-mail to inform you of updates, changes to the service, or special news and information vital to the service. Our policy is to send e-mail messages only to announce such information, and we'll continue to honor this policy. These communications are required as a part of this service. If you do not wish to receive these letters you may discontinue your participation in the service and close your account.

Microsoft respects your privacy. To learn more, please read our online Privacy Statement

Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
From conklin@limsware.com Mon Mar 9 10:40:02 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 773A03A6CF6; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 10:40:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -86.871 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-86.871 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, HELO_EQ_PL=1.135, HOST_EQ_PL=1.95, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 jjiM2kQHwLv1; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 10:40:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bnk173.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl (bnk173.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl [83.29.0.173]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C430C3A6CDE; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 10:39:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: X-Originating-IP: 100.90.58.104 by 108.130.114.29; Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:31:34 -0100 To: "Benito Frey" From: "Vincent Gibbons" Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:40:34 -0500 Subject: Why rep watches are better Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Loving yourself is the first step in loving life. And what better way to do it, than by getting yourself a fine designer watch? http://adamsgicud18.angelfire.com/Index.html How does 90 percent off sound? Great, of course! And greatness is what awaits you at Exqu1site Reps, the preferred online store where you will find the finest watch imitations for exactly that: 90% off! http://adamsgicud18.angelfire.com/Index.html So, what are you waiting for? Get that unique timepiece today at Exqu1site Reps! From jeter.mariaj@amschool.edu.sv Mon Mar 9 12:36:02 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA8D23A6C72 for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 12:36:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.624 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.624 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_16=1.526, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_3=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 ukZn+e1sGErs for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 12:35:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host168.190-137-27.telecom.net.ar (host212.200-117-112.telecom.net.ar [200.117.112.212]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id F07CA3A6C2B for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 12:35:52 -0700 (PDT) To: Subject: Stay on budget caring about your health From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090309193552.F07CA3A6C2B@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 12:35:52 -0700 (PDT)
Welcome!!!

Get huge discount for the treatment you need in our store!



Windows Live Customer Support | Hotmail Support FAQs | Newsletter feedback

Microsoft Corporation, One Microsoft Way, Redmond, WA 98052 As a Windows Live member you have received this e-mail to inform you of updates, changes to the service, or special news and information vital to the service. Our policy is to send e-mail messages only to announce such information, and we'll continue to honor this policy. These communications are required as a part of this service. If you do not wish to receive these letters you may discontinue your participation in the service and close your account.

Microsoft respects your privacy. To learn more, please read our online Privacy Statement

Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052
From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 9 13:52:41 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 668C03A69BA for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 13:52:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.18 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.18 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.285, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 7mi3yDCzOQff for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 13:52:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C3803A696F for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 13:52:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LgmOB-000Cev-WB for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 09 Mar 2009 20:47:56 +0000 Received: from [209.85.200.170] (helo=wf-out-1314.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LgmO6-000CeD-LE for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Mar 2009 20:47:52 +0000 Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 26so2115579wfd.32 for ; Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:47:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=f8S4MuziNLAUzTTrQr7tK3w2XuqRCO63kpiyW2re97c=; b=m06rgfA0V5uyrqsyya785n5Xu2kHZB7CGqRdLOrzBFy6tEpMyyE51TBJzA7weEVgE9 SfEpYECbuwbuzF9l4DfiFEzVCw313hHMXtKIoPREm+35tsucnjy/qf5vPIY0Hrk/9jnI RkdvXxKiYMSeZICumudBuYJEChxrbQ0QKZOaw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=Ve4cUoEV6TtFA5U9SZ4Vy1e5TGsqAtNANT95KnuHYzfAfH05TgzQNIPnC39RwymxSQ OAii//0VJOVASJshVYyBmU9bIs+cfyfHeUsHR8goaiXPYzVM8GSphS6Wzxczt5emFmpT bIAt63MHdvIZzYiGnfENhU/iliGWikpAYUU+8= Received: by 10.143.18.16 with SMTP id v16mr2706592wfi.142.1236631670311; Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:47:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?130.216.38.124? (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 27sm9517008wff.28.2009.03.09.13.47.48 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:47:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49B58072.7000308@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:47:46 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dan Wing CC: 'Sheng Jiang' , 'IPv6 Operations' , guoseu@huawei.com Subject: Re: draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00 References: <7FAE1435-0FE1-4C23-B8BF-151D58AF5341@cisco.com> <01d401c99d74$c9600490$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <110c01c99e03$c46343a0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <60fc593c0903061126v42ec8c17x70df80562730b40c@mail.gmail.com> <142501c99ea1$ada38d70$c2f0200a@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <142501c99ea1$ada38d70$c2f0200a@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Dan, Sorry if my previous response was rather brief; I was supposed to be on vacation for a couple of days. Below.. On 2009-03-07 10:22, Dan Wing wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Brian Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com] >> Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 11:26 AM >> To: Dan Wing >> Cc: Sheng Jiang; IPv6 Operations; Brian Carpenter; guoseu@huawei.com >> Subject: Re: draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00 >> >> Dan, >> >> We're describing a scenario. Obviously, there are other similar >> scenarios. > > I had asked my question learn if there is benefit to have the ISP's > NAT44 also terminate the IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnel. As Sheng suggested, the idea is operational convenience by combining the two functions in one box. I think we'd like to make IPv6 support seem like an easy step for an ISP that has decided they have to deploy NAT anyway. If you end up with all the specifics of a given subscriber being handled by the same box, there should be operational and administrative savings. Brian > >> That's why v6ops seems like the obvious place for a >> first discussion, imho. > > I concur. > > -d > > >> Brian >> >> On 3/6/09, Dan Wing wrote: >>>> -----Original Message----- >>> > From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org >>> > [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sheng Jiang >>> > Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 1:29 AM >>> > To: 'Fred Baker' >>> > Cc: 'IPv6 Operations'; 'Brian Carpenter' >>> > Subject: RE: Agenda issue >>> > >>> > For sure. We know the draft name rules. When we wrote the >>> > draft, we were not sure >>> > which WG it should be submitted. It seems relevant to both >>> > v6ops and behave. >>> >>> As a BEHAVE co-chair, I haven't seen a request for agenda time >>> for draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00, nor any discussion about the >>> draft on the BEHAVE mailing list. >>> >>> > We can fix it in 01 version by putting v6ops into the draft name. >>> >>> Renaming a draft starts it at -00. >>> >>> >>> Anyway, regarding your draft: it says that the CGN has to >> terminate >>> the 6-over-4 tunnel. Couldn't some other device -- not necessarily >>> the CGN -- terminate that tunnel? If so, then I believe your >>> proposal is very much just a NAT44 ("CGN") and a 6-over-4 tunnel >>> from the in-home gateway to some device that terminates the >>> tunnel and has IPv6 Internet connectivity. This tunnel >> concentrator >>> might belong to the ISP providing IPv4 service, but it >> might also be >>> offered by someone else on the Internet (as a separate service), in >>> which case the 6-over-4 tunnel might actually go *across* the >>> service provider's NAT44 ("CGN"). >>> >>> -d >>> >>> >>> > Best regards, >>> > >>> > Sheng >>> > >>> > >-----Original Message----- >>> > >From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@cisco.com] >>> > >Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 4:55 PM >>> > >To: Sheng Jiang >>> > >Cc: 'IPv6 Operations'; 'Brian Carpenter' >>> > >Subject: Re: Agenda issue >>> > > >>> > >OK. I truly wish you had put the working group moniker in the >>> > >draft name (individual submission to a named working group), >>> > >as it is hard to keep track of work in a working group with >>> > >individual submission names. >>> > > >>> > >On Mar 4, 2009, at 7:00 PM, Sheng Jiang wrote: >>> > > >>> > >> Hi, Fred, >>> > >> >>> > >> We have submitted a new draft, >>> > >draft-jiang-incremental-CGN-00. I think >>> > >> we are already on the vows agenda. Are we? If no yet, please >>> > >count us >>> > >> in. >>> > >> Thanks. >>> > >> >>> > >> Best regards, >>> > >> >>> > >> Sheng >>> > >> >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- >>> > >>> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org >>> > >>> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker >>> > >>> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 10:16 AM >>> > >>> To: IPv6 Operations >>> > >>> Subject: Agenda issue >>> > >>> >>> > >>> I have gotten a number of folks asking for time on the >>> > >agenda, but I >>> > >>> have a problem: >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 19268 Sep 10 05:33 >> draft-ietf-v6ops-ra- >>> > >>> guard-01.txt >>> > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 61870 Sep 29 08:52 >> draft-miyata-v6ops- >>> > >>> snatpt-02.txt >>> > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 48468 Oct 1 10:58 >> draft-endo-v6ops- >>> > >>> dnsproxy-01.txt >>> > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 43841 Oct 15 10:48 >> draft-ietf-v6ops- >>> > >>> tunnel- >>> > >>> security-concerns- >>> > >>> 01.txt >>> > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 18562 Oct 15 10:48 >>> > draft-krishnan-v6ops- >>> > >>> teredo-update-04.txt >>> > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 53090 Oct 30 10:22 >>> > >draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe- >>> > >>> router-03.txt >>> > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 36662 Nov 3 10:15 >>> > >draft-bajko-v6ops-port- >>> > >>> restricted-ipaddr-a >>> > >>> ssign-02.txt >>> > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 48973 Nov 3 11:06 >>> > draft-luo-v6ops-6man- >>> > >>> shim6-lbam-00.txt >>> > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 30429 Nov 3 14:26 >> draft-chown-v6ops- >>> > >>> rogue- >>> > >>> ra-02.txt >>> > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 134587 Nov 3 16:14 >>> > >>> draft-thaler-v6ops- teredo-extensions-02.tx t >>> > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 16462 Feb 17 14:52 >>> > draft-rgaglian-v6ops- >>> > >>> v6inixp-01.txt >>> > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 9716 Feb 18 08:01 >>> > draft-denis-v6ops-nat- >>> > >>> addrsel-00.txt >>> > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 41369 Feb 23 22:05 >> draft-bnss-v6ops- >>> > >>> upnp-00.txt >>> > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 19211 Mar 4 14:11 >>> > >draft-vyncke-vdv-v6ops- >>> > >>> conf-stats-00.txt >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> I see four new drafts post-Minneapolis. The Rogue RA >> and Teredo >>> > >>> drafts, whose last call completed several months ago and >>> > >the write-up >>> > >>> is awaiting new drafts, don't have new drafts. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> Hello? Anyone out there? I need new drafts (cut-off date >>> > is Friday) >>> > >>> for anything folks expect to discuss in the WG meeting... >>> > >>> >>> > >> >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> > > From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 9 15:28:59 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE4A33A676A for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 15:28:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.562 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.562 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 zmLDht1EiGic for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 15:28:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CDCB3A6C97 for ; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 15:28:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lgnvx-000InZ-0s for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 09 Mar 2009 22:26:53 +0000 Received: from [2001:630:d0:f102::25e] (helo=falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lgnvf-000Ijq-Nf for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 09 Mar 2009 22:26:38 +0000 Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost.ecs.soton.ac.uk [127.0.0.1]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n29MOTf8022969; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 22:24:29 GMT X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk n29MOTf8022969 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=ecs.soton.ac.uk; s=200903; t=1236637469; bh=bbCL9zqpiHLk6NMg70anxpEUZqM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Mime-Version:In-Reply-To; b=IUaUdrhEc91N0884oBhIVwOCzpPU9iNnWwq8jLoYrI9ZzwRLvNaf32u4aNkYPv6+X gKicIEX+lRKOCKuYb70oVj7QyDkYWqkHssAMOLDCgeVbJDtAAVGb38emn796aOTYH6 bO7KMpXQrG3mQDCmsxU+B9sJngkQ/djh9G4wCjFw= Received: from gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25d]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) envelope-from with ESMTP id l28MOY0407629531AY ret-id none; Mon, 09 Mar 2009 22:24:29 +0000 Received: from login.ecs.soton.ac.uk (login.ecs.soton.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102:230:48ff:fe59:5f12]) by gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n29MOKfs012054 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 9 Mar 2009 22:24:20 GMT Received: from login.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by login.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.11.6) with ESMTP id n29MOKLX004194; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 22:24:20 GMT Received: (from tjc@localhost) by login.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id n29MOKRJ004192; Mon, 9 Mar 2009 22:24:20 GMT Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 22:24:20 +0000 From: Tim Chown To: Fred Baker , Stig Venaas Cc: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: Agenda issue Message-ID: <20090309222420.GG28666@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> Mail-Followup-To: Fred Baker , Stig Venaas , IPv6 Operations References: <5440BA13-C799-492C-91A0-3537ACB855A3@cisco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5440BA13-C799-492C-91A0-3537ACB855A3@cisco.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean X-smtpf-Report: client=relay,white,ipv6; mail=; rcpt= X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: n29MOTf8022969 X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 06:16:16PM -0800, Fred Baker wrote: > -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 30429 Nov 3 14:26 draft-chown-v6ops-rogue- > ra-02.txt Stig and I have released a new version, in which we attempt to answer the list comments: * Switched focus to accidental RAs - Jinmei * Clarified valid lifetime * Reworded DHCP gateway text, noted new draft by Thomas * Added isolation text - Bob H * SeND deployment issues expanded - Thomas * DHCPv6 gateway reworded - emphasised shifting problem Plus other minor edits and reoriganising. Tim -- snip A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. Title : Rogue IPv6 Router Advertisement Problem Statement Author(s) : T. Chown, S. Venaas Filename : draft-chown-v6ops-rogue-ra-03.txt Pages : 16 Date : 2009-03-09 When deploying IPv6, whether IPv6-only or dual-stack, routers are configured to send IPv6 Router Advertisements to convey information to nodes that enable them to autoconfigure on the network. This information includes the implied default router address taken from the observed source address of the Router Advertisement (RA) message, as well as on-link prefix information. However, unintended misconfigurations by users or administrators, or possibly malicious attacks on the network, may lead to bogus RAs being present, which in turn can cause operational problems for hosts on the network. In this draft we summarise the scenarios in which rogue RAs may be observed and present a list of possible solutions to the problem. We focus on the unintended causes of rogue RAs in the text. The goal of this text is to be Informational, and as such to present a framework around which solutions can be proposed and discussed. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-chown-v6ops-rogue-ra-03.txt From cmschiao@ms24.hinet.net Tue Mar 10 00:16:17 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFE2F3A6CBF; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 00:16:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -79.224 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-79.224 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL=0.692, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_EQ_PL=1.135, HOST_EQ_PL=1.95, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 VL5qMmvxOR50; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 00:16:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 84-38-18-252.metrolink.pl (84-38-18-252.metrolink.pl [84.38.18.252]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 936553A67B4; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 00:16:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Rep watches make great gifts Message-ID: From: "Shawn Louis" Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit To: "Isidro Rhodes" Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 03:16:36 -0500 A fine designer watch says means refinement and money. A fine, non-expensive designer watch also means intelligence! http://robinsonqewok47.angelfire.com/Index.html So, come visit Exqu1site Reps, the famous watch-portal where thousands of satisfied customers have already found that superb imitation time piece for just a few hundred dollars. http://robinsonqewok47.angelfire.com/Index.html With so many watches that look and work like the real thing, I guarantee you'll have a delicious time finding yours at our store! From mendoza@lhac.com Tue Mar 10 05:31:44 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F01D13A69FC; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 05:31:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -85.98 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-85.98 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 dCaIXRWlTFKP; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 05:31:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from slo68-1-82-227-87-125.fbx.proxad.net (slo68-1-82-227-87-125.fbx.proxad.net [82.227.87.125]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 689833A67BD; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 05:31:33 -0700 (PDT) From: "Isiah Mcdermott" To: "Ramona Parsons" Subject: Cartier better than you could imagine! Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 08:32:06 -0500 Message-ID: <71Pbyvha.w804A41tls@ietf.org> Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Loving yourself is the first step in loving life. And what better way to do it, than by getting yourself a fine designer watch? http://whitekujob98.angelfire.com/Index.html Take advantage of Exqu1site Reps tremendous specials, and get yourself a superb designer watch imitation for just a couple of hundred bucks. Plus an extra 15 percent discount when you get two time pieces in the same purchase! http://whitekujob98.angelfire.com/Index.html Most experts couldn't tell our watches from the real thing, and neither will your friends, so impress them today get started with your watch shopping now! From bernhard.kranz@spk-schrobenhausen.de Tue Mar 10 09:24:46 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D40383A6B51; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:24:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -93.954 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-93.954 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_80=2, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 ug63u2rKxZBY; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:24:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from g228024243.adsl.alicedsl.de (g228024243.adsl.alicedsl.de [92.228.24.243]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id DC1473A6B36; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:24:39 -0700 (PDT) From: "Marla Alfaro" To: "Jimmie Tolbert" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:25:15 -0500 Subject: You and a Cartier watch Why waste your hard-earned money on an expensive watch when you can have the next best thing for a tenth of its price? http://barneszazoj97.angelfire.com/Index.html At Exqu1site Reps we specialize in fine watches imitations, offering our customers the same beauty and craftsmanship that an original carries, matched by a ridiculously low price that is sometimes hard to believe, but very much true! http://barneszazoj97.angelfire.com/Index.html Enjoy the fastest shipping around, paired with secure billing, incredible customer service and the largest online selection of fine reproduction timepieces only at Exqu1site Reps, of course! From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Mar 10 13:01:50 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F5FF3A6B04 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:01:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.495 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 h7x6-aNS39SE for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:01:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F3E43A6A34 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:01:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lh84K-000HdP-Rr for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:56:52 +0000 Received: from [171.68.10.87] (helo=sj-iport-5.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lh84E-000Hd2-QX for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:56:49 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,337,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="66777851" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Mar 2009 19:56:46 +0000 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2AJukhq031247 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:56:46 -0700 Received: from ftpeng-update.cisco.com (ftpeng-update.cisco.com [171.69.17.32]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2AJukn1007683 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:56:46 GMT From: fred@cisco.com Received: (fred@localhost) by ftpeng-update.cisco.com (8.11.2/CISCO.WS.1.2) id n2AJukw21649 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:56:46 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:56:46 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200903101956.n2AJukw21649@ftpeng-update.cisco.com> To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org Subject: Are there any other documents for the agenda? DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2183; t=1236715006; x=1237579006; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20fred@cisco.com |Subject:=20Are=20there=20any=20other=20documents=20for=20t he=20agenda? |Sender:=20; bh=ufp//TpkYkBg4+2CwPNoQfiWe55mFC0xmzg/Fmd50UY=; b=M3IQrdJ3IcuqXHZqF14kGcDQ5AcXhLnncZsejnzouQVdky+tWvjF7zGItO q+Tq6p/KioUct44E5tFdDqNbNGs2X+SPCmYHe18enJsVotwYX4paZG2vmPW2 /HAANo56RJ; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04.txt "IPv6 CPE Router Recommendations", Hemant Singh, Wes Beebee, 6-Mar-09, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nishitani-cgn-01.txt "Common Functions of Large Scale NAT (LSN)", Tomohiro Nishitani, Shin Miyakawa, Akira Nakagawa, Hiroyuki Ashida, 19-Nov-08, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-luo-v6ops-6man-shim6-lbam-00.txt "Load Balancing based on IPv6 Anycast and pseudo-Mobility", Wanming Luo, XiaoDong Lee, Wei Mao, Mei Wang, 3-Nov-08, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rgaglian-v6ops-v6inixp-01.txt "IPv6 Deployment in Internet Exchange Points (IXPs)", Roque Gagliano, 17-Feb-09, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-denis-v6ops-nat-addrsel-00.txt "Problems with IPv6 source address selection and IPv4 NATs", Remi Denis-Courmont, 18-Feb-09, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bnss-v6ops-upnp-01.txt "IPv6 Services for UPnP Residential Networks", Mark Baugher, Erwan Nedellec, Mika Saaranen, Barbara Stark, 8-Mar-09, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jiang-incremental-cgn-00.txt "An Incremental Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) for IPv6 Transition", Sheng Jiang, Dayong Guo, 1-Mar-09, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nward-6to4-qualification-00.txt "6to4 Qualification", Nathan Ward, 3-Mar-09, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nward-ipv6-autoconfig-filtering-ethernet-00.txt "IPv6 Autoconfig Filtering on Ethernet Switches", Nathan Ward, 4-Mar-09, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vyncke-vdv-v6ops-conf-stats-01.txt "IPv6 Deployment and Statistics at a Conference", Eric Vyncke, Gunter Van de Velde, 8-Mar-09, From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Mar 10 13:02:02 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AE283A6A34 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:02:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.37 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.37 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.875, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 ARK0iI1kHx0D for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:02:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D59B03A67DD for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:02:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lh88J-000Huy-Fg for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:00:59 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.71] (helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lh88E-000HtY-6Q for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:00:56 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,337,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="140017714" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Mar 2009 20:00:53 +0000 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2AK0rVa026935 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:00:53 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2AK0rcI017815 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:00:53 GMT Received: from xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.187]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:00:53 -0700 Received: from stealth-10-32-244-222.cisco.com ([10.32.244.222]) by xfe-sjc-212.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:00:53 -0700 Message-Id: From: Fred Baker To: IPv6 Operations Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Are there any other documents for the agenda? Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:00:52 -0700 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Mar 2009 20:00:53.0250 (UTC) FILETIME=[EAD3AE20:01C9A1BA] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1979; t=1236715253; x=1237579253; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20 |Subject:=20Are=20there=20any=20other=20documents=20for=20t he=20agenda? |Sender:=20; bh=FK0TiQOzT+pP75eKfNxbjfOpyEZ2+7ywpdPgTB3iVhg=; b=uWmvX7zVZL4BXGlc0qIdCNN9FrF4+uZYzbQ8YJ7S90KwE+g8/0gIKKbidh 83DI8I+P+5Lxkf69Stv4UmASWz3mHuVLOMB1XNhQ38KJfPaOybk3xmRRewIx dzjGSALod5n972Zj+ivVoZhlf/gmJbvBIRzcx0RAVwwkOEGz9SEjQ=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04.txt "IPv6 CPE Router Recommendations", Hemant Singh, Wes Beebee, 6- Mar-09, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-luo-v6ops-6man-shim6-lbam-00.txt "Load Balancing based on IPv6 Anycast and pseudo-Mobility", Wanming Luo, XiaoDong Lee, Wei Mao, Mei Wang, 3-Nov-08, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rgaglian-v6ops-v6inixp-01.txt "IPv6 Deployment in Internet Exchange Points (IXPs)", Roque Gagliano, 17-Feb-09, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-denis-v6ops-nat-addrsel-00.txt "Problems with IPv6 source address selection and IPv4 NATs", Remi Denis-Courmont, 18-Feb-09, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bnss-v6ops-upnp-01.txt "IPv6 Services for UPnP Residential Networks", Mark Baugher, Erwan Nedellec, Mika Saaranen, Barbara Stark, 8-Mar-09, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jiang-incremental-cgn-00.txt "An Incremental Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) for IPv6 Transition", Sheng Jiang, Dayong Guo, 1-Mar-09, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nward-6to4-qualification-00.txt "6to4 Qualification", Nathan Ward, 3-Mar-09, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nward-ipv6-autoconfig-filtering-ethernet-00.txt "IPv6 Autoconfig Filtering on Ethernet Switches", Nathan Ward, 4- Mar-09, http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vyncke-vdv-v6ops-conf-stats-01.txt "IPv6 Deployment and Statistics at a Conference", Eric Vyncke, Gunter Van de Velde, 8-Mar-09, From asjit@artstyle.ru Wed Mar 11 01:10:35 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0209A3A6A3A; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 01:10:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -49.032 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-49.032 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 16H+CTA2O38Y; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 01:10:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cpc5-ptal1-0-0-cust949.swan.cable.ntl.com (cpc5-ptal1-0-0-cust949.swan.cable.ntl.com [82.16.171.182]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 728B73A69EC; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 01:10:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: X-Originating-IP: 152.117.212.244 by 66.208.200.200; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 04:07:03 -0500 To: "Thaddeus Sinclair" From: "Augusta Kilgore" Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 04:11:03 -0500 Subject: Trim line or sport watch? You choose Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Loving yourself is the first step in loving life. And what better way to do it, than by getting yourself a fine designer watch? http://www.fuyebiges.cn At Exqu1site Reps we specialize in fine watches imitations, offering our customers the same beauty and craftsmanship that an original carries, matched by a ridiculously low price that is sometimes hard to believe, but very much true! http://www.fuyebiges.cn Get ready to feel like a kid in a candy store when you see our incredible collection of fine reproduction timepieces at Exqu1site Reps! Come on, get started now! From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 11 02:50:42 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D411F28C116 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 02:50:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.572 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.572 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 lJt+hCNc2rNy for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 02:50:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08E333A6B51 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 02:50:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LhL0N-0009GJ-LI for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:45:39 +0000 Received: from [2001:630:d0:f102::25e] (helo=falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LhL09-0009Fb-AZ for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:45:33 +0000 Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2B9jLsg013515 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:45:21 GMT X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk n2B9jLsg013515 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=ecs.soton.ac.uk; s=200903; t=1236764721; bh=8AGRWrYHIfM6ouAQdJ6zrYIo9WM=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:Mime-Version:In-Reply-To; b=AiWIX/ZBMCojPOrSBStqr73xuvTDK4jCXiwuKjLsrio8FJgbsaYQU5e2ek3zWPum5 Xh/ChE9Nb3F89mXAkxjx3YluXhfmxYPFE37hn3bkl/8ozsnFN6KtYYKygIfEBi8WPm Zi228EAcPib8P7q35E8UmSm62r7Vw/g/f7lxLOqw= Received: from gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk ([2001:630:d0:f102:21d:9ff:fe22:9fc]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102:21e:c9ff:fe2e:e915]) envelope-from with ESMTP id l2A9jL04076404089W ret-id none; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:45:21 +0000 Received: from login.ecs.soton.ac.uk (login.ecs.soton.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102:230:48ff:fe59:5f12]) by gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2B9j7NW031138 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:45:07 GMT Received: from login.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by login.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.11.6) with ESMTP id n2B9j7fd000985 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:45:07 GMT Received: (from tjc@localhost) by login.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id n2B9j7I0000984 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:45:07 GMT Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:45:07 +0000 From: Tim Chown To: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: Are there any other documents for the agenda? Message-ID: <20090311094507.GD31962@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> Mail-Followup-To: IPv6 Operations References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean X-smtpf-Report: client=relay,forged,white,no_ptr,ipv6; mail=; rcpt= X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: n2B9jLsg013515 X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Hi Fred, Please add: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-chown-v6ops-rogue-ra-03.txt "Rogue IPv6 Router Advertisement Problem Statement" Tim Chown, Stig Venaas, 9-Mar-09 There would be one slide describing updates and any discussion. Tim On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 01:00:52PM -0700, Fred Baker wrote: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04.txt > "IPv6 CPE Router Recommendations", Hemant Singh, Wes Beebee, 6- > Mar-09, > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-luo-v6ops-6man-shim6-lbam-00.txt > "Load Balancing based on IPv6 Anycast and pseudo-Mobility", Wanming > Luo, > XiaoDong Lee, Wei Mao, Mei Wang, 3-Nov-08, > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rgaglian-v6ops-v6inixp-01.txt > "IPv6 Deployment in Internet Exchange Points (IXPs)", Roque Gagliano, > 17-Feb-09, > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-denis-v6ops-nat-addrsel-00.txt > "Problems with IPv6 source address selection and IPv4 NATs", Remi > Denis-Courmont, 18-Feb-09, > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bnss-v6ops-upnp-01.txt > "IPv6 Services for UPnP Residential Networks", Mark Baugher, Erwan > Nedellec, > Mika Saaranen, Barbara Stark, 8-Mar-09, upnp-01.txt> > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jiang-incremental-cgn-00.txt > "An Incremental Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) for IPv6 Transition", Sheng > Jiang, > Dayong Guo, 1-Mar-09, > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nward-6to4-qualification-00.txt > "6to4 Qualification", Nathan Ward, 3-Mar-09, > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nward-ipv6-autoconfig-filtering-ethernet-00.txt > "IPv6 Autoconfig Filtering on Ethernet Switches", Nathan Ward, 4- > Mar-09, > > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vyncke-vdv-v6ops-conf-stats-01.txt > "IPv6 Deployment and Statistics at a Conference", Eric Vyncke, > Gunter Van de > Velde, 8-Mar-09, > > -- Tim From rt@mls.ca Wed Mar 11 04:04:17 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66B8F3A68A4; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 04:04:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -19.077 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-19.077 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 8rMuO90UcZDY; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 04:04:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e180029051.adsl.alicedsl.de (e180029051.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.180.29.51]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E68723A6AB5; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 04:04:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 228.120.232.215 by 232.99.142.120; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:01:53 +0300 Message-ID: To: "Pamela Mobley" From: "Carole Hoover" Subject: Impressive Gucci timepieces Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 07:04:53 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Have you been dreaming about owning an expensive designer watch? Now you can, just without the high price tag! http://www.jiculunoy.cn How does 90 percent off sound? Great, of course! And greatness is what awaits you at Exqu1site Reps, the preferred online store where you will find the finest watch imitations for exactly that: 90% off! http://www.jiculunoy.cn Enjoy the fastest shipping around, paired with secure billing, incredible customer service and the largest online selection of fine reproduction timepieces only at Exqu1site Reps, of course! From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 11 09:18:12 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C07523A6BAB for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:18:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.547 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.547 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.052, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 UjigK3HjxjbQ for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:18:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 755EE3A6980 for ; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:17:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LhR4Q-00065W-Mv for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:14:14 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.71] (helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LhR4L-00064x-Db for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:14:11 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,343,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="140396897" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Mar 2009 16:14:06 +0000 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2BGE68E004577; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:14:06 -0700 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2BGDcuK028804; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:14:06 GMT Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:13:55 -0400 Received: from stealth-10-32-244-222.cisco.com ([10.32.244.222]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:13:55 -0400 Cc: IPv6 Operations Message-Id: <9BA3C46C-A59E-488C-9CB7-81ABD2582943@cisco.com> From: Fred Baker To: Tim Chown In-Reply-To: <20090311094507.GD31962@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: Are there any other documents for the agenda? Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:13:54 -0700 References: <20090311094507.GD31962@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Mar 2009 16:13:55.0791 (UTC) FILETIME=[609A15F0:01C9A264] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2471; t=1236788046; x=1237652046; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20Are=20there=20any=20other=20documents=2 0for=20the=20agenda? |Sender:=20; bh=1JsDhAijJ1MUcfbBepHY/3L/aMCPfLFI3KrtDltYXE8=; b=UpkIuog0pDufXdU2q320RVokEvlDY5kvBFL9WbCJIWt/MGguH1MM7aCdky nBuhbOyTVyAbAm6p6hRSa0s8pyKAfArSUZefemJyryKhfyEAe6PBQE4U0wMR EGdnNA4TD+GIngv/Bm7RlZAvXGAZ2hizQl2RsfHoK8D8NEUlTNaWI=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: OK On Mar 11, 2009, at 2:45 AM, Tim Chown wrote: > Hi Fred, > > Please add: > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-chown-v6ops-rogue-ra-03.txt > "Rogue IPv6 Router Advertisement Problem Statement" > Tim Chown, Stig Venaas, 9-Mar-09 > > There would be one slide describing updates and any discussion. > > Tim > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 01:00:52PM -0700, Fred Baker wrote: >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04.txt >> "IPv6 CPE Router Recommendations", Hemant Singh, Wes Beebee, 6- >> Mar-09, >> >> >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-luo-v6ops-6man-shim6-lbam-00.txt >> "Load Balancing based on IPv6 Anycast and pseudo-Mobility", Wanming >> Luo, >> XiaoDong Lee, Wei Mao, Mei Wang, 3-Nov-08, >> >> >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rgaglian-v6ops-v6inixp-01.txt >> "IPv6 Deployment in Internet Exchange Points (IXPs)", Roque >> Gagliano, >> 17-Feb-09, >> >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-denis-v6ops-nat-addrsel-00.txt >> "Problems with IPv6 source address selection and IPv4 NATs", Remi >> Denis-Courmont, 18-Feb-09, >> >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bnss-v6ops-upnp-01.txt >> "IPv6 Services for UPnP Residential Networks", Mark Baugher, Erwan >> Nedellec, >> Mika Saaranen, Barbara Stark, 8-Mar-09, > upnp-01.txt> >> >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jiang-incremental-cgn-00.txt >> "An Incremental Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) for IPv6 Transition", Sheng >> Jiang, >> Dayong Guo, 1-Mar-09, >> >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nward-6to4-qualification-00.txt >> "6to4 Qualification", Nathan Ward, 3-Mar-09, >> >> >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nward-ipv6-autoconfig-filtering-ethernet-00.txt >> "IPv6 Autoconfig Filtering on Ethernet Switches", Nathan Ward, 4- >> Mar-09, >> >> >> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-vyncke-vdv-v6ops-conf-stats-01.txt >> "IPv6 Deployment and Statistics at a Conference", Eric Vyncke, >> Gunter Van de >> Velde, 8-Mar-09, >> >> > > -- > Tim > > > From cunningham@ucr-sa.com Wed Mar 11 13:43:07 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D783F28C158; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:43:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.104 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.104 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_60=1, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HELO_EQ_NE_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, HOST_EQ_NE_JP=2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 HSgBzX9emzeN; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:43:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EM114-48-133-62.pool.e-mobile.ne.jp (EM114-48-133-62.pool.e-mobile.ne.jp [114.48.133.62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 01C4A28C18E; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:42:01 -0700 (PDT) To: "Shawn Hinton" Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:42:33 -0500 Subject: Affordable rep watches Message-ID: From: "Adrienne Olson" Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Loving yourself is the first step in loving life. And what better way to do it, than by getting yourself a fine designer watch? http://www.hopixakez.cn Now that the Holidays are behind us and stores everywhere are offering their lowest prices of the year, Exqu1site Reps is keeping up with the times to help you keep your time with a distinguished watch at a ridiculously low price! http://www.hopixakez.cn So, what are you waiting for? Get that unique timepiece today at Exqu1site Reps! From henry@cmrfund.com Wed Mar 11 20:10:00 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CBB028C0E9; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 20:10:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -20.047 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-20.047 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_EQ_PPPOE=0.35, HELO_EQ_RU=0.595, HOST_EQ_RU=0.875, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_HELO_EQ_PPPOE=0.555, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 68w18zzipwqG; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 20:09:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pppoe-88-147-200-173.san.ru (pppoe-88-147-200-173.san.ru [88.147.200.173]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B615C3A6AB7; Wed, 11 Mar 2009 20:09:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <881fut496465v6ops-archive@megatron.ietf.org> From: "Merle Olsen" To: "Laurence Best" X-Originating-IP: 96.5.172.208 by 85.134.10.208; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 02:02:34 -0200 Subject: The affordable watch alternative Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 23:10:34 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit A fine designer watch says means refinement and money. A fine, non-expensive designer watch also means intelligence! http://www.xahoqazem.cn At Exqu1site Reps we specialize in fine watches imitations, offering our customers the same beauty and craftsmanship that an original carries, matched by a ridiculously low price that is sometimes hard to believe, but very much true! http://www.xahoqazem.cn With so many watches that look and work like the real thing, I guarantee you'll have a delicious time finding yours at our store! From lawrence@lpa.net Thu Mar 12 04:33:53 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05BD83A67EA; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:33:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -15.999 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, GB_ROLEX=5, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 BGiyOgmfGY1Z; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:33:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cpc2-mfld13-0-0-cust994.nott.cable.ntl.com (cpc2-mfld13-0-0-cust994.nott.cable.ntl.com [86.11.207.227]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 450333A677D; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:33:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Rep or Original? Message-ID: From: "Wilton Yu" Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit To: "Alphonse Hutchinson" Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 07:34:20 -0500 There are things in life that seem unattainable. Owning a fine watch doesn't have to be one of them. http://www.piqezukuy.cn At Exqu1site Reps we make it easy to get a Rolex, Cartier, Bvlgari or any brand name that you think of. As long as it is considered a high class watch, you will find it in our one of a kind store! http://www.piqezukuy.cn With so many watches that look and work like the real thing, I guarantee you'll have a delicious time finding yours at our store! From khumusibhopalamiln@alvazarat.org Thu Mar 12 05:14:03 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73BEA3A6A37 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 05:14:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -12.456 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.456 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_EQ_BR=0.955, HELO_MISMATCH_BR=2.4, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_UNA=1.231, SARE_UNI=0.591, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 KQSqcAEjS+rL for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 05:13:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from acocon.com.br (unknown [201.17.220.223]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1A64E3A6A34 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 05:13:54 -0700 (PDT) To: Subject: monthly newsletter From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090312121355.1A64E3A6A34@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 05:13:54 -0700 (PDT)
MONTHLY NEWSLETTER
March 2009
Click there for visit site now. FAQ.
Discuss your general health status with your doctor to ensure that you are healthy enough to engage in sexual activity.


Did somebody forward this message to you? Then SIGN UP HERE
To no longer receive these messages, please click Unsubscribe OR Send a postal mail to: Ottho Heldringstraat 4, 09083 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
From norton@altodigital.com Thu Mar 12 14:10:53 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B79A528C252 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:10:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.148 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.148 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_UNA=1.231, SARE_UNI=0.591, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 UKSj+YJVfbcc for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:10:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 93-40-143-138.ip39.fastwebnet.it (93-40-143-138.ip39.fastwebnet.it [93.40.143.138]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 09A9628C1E0 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:10:50 -0700 (PDT) To: Subject: from admin From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090312211051.09A9628C1E0@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:10:50 -0700 (PDT)
MONTHLY NEWSLETTER
March 2009
Click there for visit site now. Customer!
Don't take preparatoin if you take nitrates, often prescribed for chest pain, as this may cause a sudden, unsafe drop in blood pressure.


Did somebody forward this message to you? Then SIGN UP HERE
To no longer receive these messages, please click Unsubscribe OR Send a postal mail to: Ottho Heldringstraat 5, 68812 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Mar 12 14:40:41 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEE253A684B for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:40:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.247 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.247 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.352, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 gCX3RImdaxeM for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:40:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2D7B3A6823 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:40:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LhsYl-000BHT-HQ for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:35:23 +0000 Received: from [216.82.250.147] (helo=mail129.messagelabs.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LhsYf-000BGv-Vc for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:35:20 +0000 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: bs7652@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-4.tower-129.messagelabs.com!1236893715!26549163!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.0.0; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.53] Received: (qmail 19707 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2009 21:35:16 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.53) by server-4.tower-129.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 12 Mar 2009 21:35:16 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n2CLZDgu023067; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:35:15 -0400 Received: from 01GAF5142010621.AD.BLS.COM (01GAF5142010621.ad.bls.com [139.76.131.79]) by mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with SMTP id n2CLZ9sV022992; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:35:09 -0400 Received: from 01NC27689010626.AD.BLS.COM ([90.144.44.201]) by 01GAF5142010621.AD.BLS.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:35:09 -0400 Received: from 01NC27689010641.AD.BLS.COM ([90.144.44.103]) by 01NC27689010626.AD.BLS.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:35:08 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.3168 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:35:03 -0400 Message-ID: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0D5320AF@crexc41p> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft thread-index: AcmdcKeRcryZ/MspT8qEcavULU5jWgAA1IrwACOcU6AAAwEyYAAmvCPAASu10JA= References: <110c01c99e03$c46343a0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <021d01c99e10$888458d0$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> From: "Stark, Barbara" To: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" , "IPv6 Operations" CC: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Mar 2009 21:35:08.0967 (UTC) FILETIME=[6AB91B70:01C9A35A] Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Thanks for this new draft. I have a few comments: 1. The statements around strong hosts in 5.3.2 are confusing to me. - I had to go searching for what a strong host is -- perhaps a reference to RFC 1122 would be useful, if that is the right reference? - The statements in the current version (section 5.3.2) are: "The Unnumbered model is incompatible with the strong host model on the CPE router. The unnumbered model may be inappropriate for use with certain deployments where a device that uses the strong host model can operate as a CPE Router." It's not clear to me just what it is that's incompatible vs. inappropriate. Could this be clarified a little? 2. Has any thought been given to the role a CPE router should play in supporting a local domain name scheme? Most routers today do have their own DNS function, and send their own IP address to LAN hosts as the DNS server to use. Many people have said (in various places) how undesirable it will be for people to have to type IPv6 addresses when they're accessing a particular LAN host, and how nice it would be if all LAN hosts could be accessed by URLs, with the CPE router providing resolution. It's been suggested that some form of Dynamic DNS might be used, for hosts to tell the CPE Router what name they want to use, and the IP address(es) associated with that name. The problem is that many forms of Dynamic DNS currently exist, so it isn't really "standard". It would be nice if there were some standard recommendation for hosts to create entries in the CPE router DNS function. 3. Please change "DSL Forum" to "Broadband Forum" in the Abstract. =20 Thanks, Barbara -----Original Message----- From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hemant Singh (shemant) Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 5:27 PM To: IPv6 Operations Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); Wes Beebee (wbeebee) Subject: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04.txt Sorry, we forgot that the -00 submission for I-D's was March 4th, 2009 and thus did not release a draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-00.txt. As folks may know this draft is a work item of the v6ops WG as of the Minneapolis IETF during November 2008. Soon as IETF opens up -00 submission again during the March IETF, we will submit the -00 version of this draft. We didn't want to wait any longer to release this new version so that folks could get a few weeks of review before IETF 74. Gross items taken care of in this version. 1. Added DS-Lite section to the draft. 2. Added text to cater to Brian Carpenter's comment that the CPE Rtr should not hard code it's data forwarding table to existing 200::/3 prefix. 3. Added more explanatory text to strong host model portion of the document to address question raised by Dave Thaler at the mike during IETF 73. 4. Augmented the Abstract to cater to comments from the mike during IETF 73 as to how other task forces may use this document. 5. Added ND Proxy section catering to comments from Teemu. Hemant & Wes ***** The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to = which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or = privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other = use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by = persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If = you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the = material from all computers. GA621 From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Mar 12 15:03:16 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 928533A6A6E for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:03:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.571 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.571 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.676, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 5-WU4pVzUrT4 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:03:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3909C3A68F6 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:03:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LhszN-000D4Y-6C for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:02:53 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.72] (helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LhszI-000D43-07 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:02:50 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,352,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="142169931" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 12 Mar 2009 22:02:47 +0000 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2CM2lLt006910; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:02:47 -0700 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2CM2k9x021002; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:02:46 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.40]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:02:46 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:02:45 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0D5320AF@crexc41p> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Thread-Index: AcmdcKeRcryZ/MspT8qEcavULU5jWgAA1IrwACOcU6AAAwEyYAAmvCPAASu10JAAAOFA4A== References: <110c01c99e03$c46343a0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <021d01c99e10$888458d0$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0D5320AF@crexc41p> From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" To: "Stark, Barbara" , "IPv6 Operations" Cc: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Mar 2009 22:02:46.0318 (UTC) FILETIME=[4694CCE0:01C9A35E] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2970; t=1236895367; x=1237759367; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20Posted=20a=20new=20copy=20of=20CPE=20Rt r=20draft |Sender:=20; bh=4h+3PHxRKApq5CxcbGX3/zDYl/g7jlMBa5yalnKdVfQ=; b=On5QjIlMnU9Oj5TIQhNROHK3710AKo6Z3rQM4HBvp8G7ZqeKBqm32b67Bf j48RSLz8S054FxoXXLPJoRZVz56/nR5u7U1apnZhhF0/i4kReUa2R+PiQBAu HpGUTQ9bzF6/KffqdZfmh7iE551rOvlNYRYSV/tRa1hrtMlTaAerc=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=shemant@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: -----Original Message----- From: Stark, Barbara [mailto:bs7652@att.com]=20 Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 5:35 PM To: Hemant Singh (shemant); IPv6 Operations Cc: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Thanks for this new draft. I have a few comments: 1. The statements around strong hosts in 5.3.2 are confusing to me. - I had to go searching for what a strong host is -- perhaps a reference to RFC 1122 would be useful, if that is the right reference? - The statements in the current version (section 5.3.2) are: "The Unnumbered model is incompatible with the strong host model on the CPE router. The unnumbered model may be inappropriate for use with certain deployments where a device that uses the strong host model can operate as a CPE Router." It's not clear to me just what it is that's incompatible vs. inappropriate. Could this be clarified a little? =20 If you scanned the archives of v6ops, the incompatibility has been clarified. Anyway, here is a summary of what transpired and why this text. Some division of NTT ( I think its NTT West) in Japan uses a Windows PC in the customer's home where the PC has some patch provided by the SP to install on the PC and then this PC acts as a CPE Rtr. These comments in our draft relate to such a deployment and Shin from NTT asked us to add such a blurb in our draft. Obviously suck hacked up router code on Windows will have problems with strong vs. weak host model. We didn't want to go into any mode details with this text and since Shin who raised this issue was fine with our text, we'd like to leave it like that. 2. Has any thought been given to the role a CPE router should play in supporting a local domain name scheme?=20 =20 Even in one rev before this rev of the CPE Router, in section 8.6, we have mentioned local DNS. [For local DNS queries for configuration, the CPE Router may include a DNS server to handle local queries.] Most routers today do have their own DNS function, and send their own IP address to LAN hosts as the DNS server to use. Many people have said (in various places) how undesirable it will be for people to have to type IPv6 addresses when they're accessing a particular LAN host, and how nice it would be if all LAN hosts could be accessed by URLs, with the CPE router providing resolution. It's been suggested that some form of Dynamic DNS might be used, for hosts to tell the CPE Router what name they want to use, and the IP address(es) associated with that name. The problem is that many forms of Dynamic DNS currently exist, so it isn't really "standard". It would be nice if there were some standard recommendation for hosts to create entries in the CPE router DNS function. 3. Please change "DSL Forum" to "Broadband Forum" in the Abstract. =20 Will do - thanks for this correction. Thanks for the review. Hemant Thanks, Barbara From lucas@efw.com Thu Mar 12 17:29:13 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E56A3A6938; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:29:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -23.697 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-23.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP=1.398, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 TJj+wCbqXLp4; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:29:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dhcp-0-b0-d0-4b-19-39.cpe.quickclic.net (dhcp-0-b0-d0-4b-19-39.cpe.quickclic.net [207.210.4.99]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D5E3D3A657C; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:29:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 192.117.66.72 by 244.234.254.50; Fri, 13 Mar 2009 04:25:50 +0300 Message-ID: To: "Helga Jeffries" From: "Odis Zimmerman" Subject: The discreet rep store Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:29:50 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit A fine designer watch says means refinement and money. A fine, non-expensive designer watch also means intelligence! http://www.kanesotoh.cn How does 90 percent off sound? Great, of course! And greatness is what awaits you at Exqu1site Reps, the preferred online store where you will find the finest watch imitations for exactly that: 90% off! http://www.kanesotoh.cn With so many watches that look and work like the real thing, I guarantee you'll have a delicious time finding yours at our store! From liy@amgen.com Thu Mar 12 18:34:30 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 538F13A6938 for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:34:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.187 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.187 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_UNA=1.231, SARE_UNI=0.591, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 KijvHKYjs-aJ for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:34:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 89-139-151-103.bb.netvision.net.il (89-139-151-103.bb.netvision.net.il [89.139.151.103]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D4B7B3A681C for ; Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:34:26 -0700 (PDT) To: Subject: change your preferences From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090313013426.D4B7B3A681C@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 18:34:26 -0700 (PDT)
MONTHLY NEWSLETTER
March 2009
Click there for visit site now. Important safety information
Don't take preparatoin if you take nitrates, often prescribed for chest pain, as this may cause a sudden, unsafe drop in blood pressure.


Did somebody forward this message to you? Then SIGN UP HERE
To no longer receive these messages, please click Unsubscribe OR Send a postal mail to: Ottho Heldringstraat 9, 34880 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
From marcellinasutardja@airoyal.biz Fri Mar 13 02:46:02 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62FF93A67AF for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2009 02:46:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.193 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.193 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_UNA=1.231, SARE_UNI=0.591, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 Ua2VYL2Wlo75 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2009 02:45:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ppp-94-66-158-234.home.otenet.gr (ppp-94-66-158-234.home.otenet.gr [94.66.158.234]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7A5613A6A18 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2009 02:45:44 -0700 (PDT) To: Subject: DataArt Newsletters From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090313094545.7A5613A6A18@core3.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 02:45:44 -0700 (PDT)
MONTHLY NEWSLETTER
March 2009
Click there for visit site now. Customer!
Don't take preparatoin if you take nitrates, often prescribed for chest pain, as this may cause a sudden, unsafe drop in blood pressure.


Did somebody forward this message to you? Then SIGN UP HERE
To no longer receive these messages, please click Unsubscribe OR Send a postal mail to: Ottho Heldringstraat 4, 28442 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 13 17:08:39 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4397D3A676A for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:08:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.48 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.48 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.985, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 aIlsDkhIwdGo for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:08:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B8CA28C102 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:08:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LiHL1-000EcE-Fq for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Sat, 14 Mar 2009 00:02:51 +0000 Received: from [209.85.142.188] (helo=ti-out-0910.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LiHKt-000Ebt-4m for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 14 Mar 2009 00:02:46 +0000 Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id d10so1594852tib.23 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:02:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+R2R6bqYOTnNl/qqVVooOPwYKCWhUFoYUqBVftEF6wk=; b=W9wYVJeFOTvkE28JKbFiMnGv8oW4L4AaSZfCOxaKBtFY395byliX9fGLf/NsHmFyF8 80HiKVkwNlju+ak3DDO9Mu6LND8o+XeXFICRdK4KFwV89AAMWBc7Ipp7V5+LZXcw+1MS hHwJrEmF5lKuZMcfNy0JDQ64bALCz/faqTEhg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=BYbmpzH/KSZCjGRHkzfIinJ3md3Ekp7CEPEZrXkBO8YRyBN6Nkhdt21bP7Aj+DeaO6 NVU7D3hPAeUM3GTfU0rgCAEUIztRc0rcHdRsAjvB+gQsUenP1GDF4LYZXt8frx9BjoDe JEOHbak2SolfVqASXnDGa2isP/d0eGJNDRlGs= Received: by 10.110.2.2 with SMTP id 2mr2708175tib.2.1236988960820; Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:02:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?10.1.1.5? (118-93-13-26.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz [118.93.13.26]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w5sm2482125tib.5.2009.03.13.17.02.38 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:02:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49BAF41A.70806@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 13:02:34 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: remi.denis-courmont@nokia.com CC: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-denis-v6ops-nat-addrsel-00.txt References: <20090218161504.A880C3A6A15@core3.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20090218161504.A880C3A6A15@core3.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Remi, I am not sure about this statement in your draft: > Thus, the transitional (IPv6) address will be used instead of the > native (IPv4) address, even though that should have been avoided. As I recall, the intention was always that IPv6 should be preferred to IPv4, when both are available. The statement you quote earlier > [RFC3484] states that "the use of transitional addresses when native > addresses are available [should be avoided]". was in my memory intended to refer to IPv6 versus IPv6, and not to IPv6 versus IPv4. On that view, the current behaviour is not a mistake. The mistake may be elsewhere: a black hole in the transitional IPv6 connectivity. You suggest: > Several operating system vendors appear to work around this issue by > assigning a global scope to IPv4 address. Thus, rule 2 is no longer > discriminating against the IPv4 address pair. True, but that is against the intention of discriminating in favour of IPv6. So while some vendors may have chosen this approach, it isn't what we wanted. I don't see why we'd fix an operational problem of black holes by discriminating in favour of IPv4 NAT. That would just serve to reduce the incentive to fix the black holes. > 6. IPv6 Address Translation > > The implications of IPv6 Address Translation and protocol translation > are left beyond the scope of this document. However, it can only be > recommended that RFC3484 be taken into account when designing such > translation systems. Since ULAs are defined to have global scope, I think there will be no problem. Brian From l.monkuss@aaea.k12.ar.us Fri Mar 13 19:29:31 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C90D3A6A94 for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2009 19:29:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -43.743 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-43.743 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_60=1, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.552, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_SHORT_LINK_IMG_3=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 rFM8MAeictIr for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2009 19:29:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ahabs.wisc.edu (unknown [212.125.24.139]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2B9F23A69EB for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2009 19:29:28 -0700 (PDT) To: Subject: you subscribe #71264 From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Importance: High Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090314022929.2B9F23A69EB@core3.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 19:29:28 -0700 (PDT)
Site Here!
From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 13 20:24:32 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FF603A6B2D for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2009 20:24:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.3 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 AUs64OspWU1a for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2009 20:24:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41A4D3A69EA for ; Fri, 13 Mar 2009 20:24:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LiKQu-000OVb-9K for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Sat, 14 Mar 2009 03:21:08 +0000 Received: from [2001:4f8:3:36::162] (helo=mon.jinmei.org) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LiKQo-000OVE-9O for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 14 Mar 2009 03:21:05 +0000 Received: from jmb.jinmei.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:bb:217:f2ff:fee0:a91f]) by mon.jinmei.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE6DE33C2E; Fri, 13 Mar 2009 20:21:00 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 20:21:00 -0700 Message-ID: From: JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= To: Tim Chown Cc: Fred Baker , Stig Venaas , IPv6 Operations Subject: draft-chown-v6ops-rogue-ra-03 (Re: Agenda issue) In-Reply-To: <20090309222420.GG28666@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> References: <5440BA13-C799-492C-91A0-3537ACB855A3@cisco.com> <20090309222420.GG28666@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) Emacs/22.1 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: At Mon, 9 Mar 2009 22:24:20 +0000, Tim Chown wrote: > > -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 30429 Nov 3 14:26 draft-chown-v6ops-rogue- > > ra-02.txt > > Stig and I have released a new version, in which we attempt to answer the > list comments: > > * Switched focus to accidental RAs - Jinmei > * Clarified valid lifetime > * Reworded DHCP gateway text, noted new draft by Thomas > * Added isolation text - Bob H > * SeND deployment issues expanded - Thomas > * DHCPv6 gateway reworded - emphasised shifting problem > > Plus other minor edits and reoriganising. I've read the 03 version, and confirmed that my concern on the previous version was clearly addressed (thanks!). I don't know the intended next step of this document, whether to adopt it as a wg item or to submit it to the IESG, but I support it in either case. I have some minor (mostly) editorial comments on 03 as follows: p.8 Section 3.8: I guess the following paragraph were intended to be out of scope (simply removed?) according to the revised focus of this document: In contrast though, an attacker might use such a tool to learn about prefixes being advertised on a link and to deprecate the 'good' RA(s) in favour of their bogus RA(s). p.11 Section 4: I failed to parse the following part. There is perhaps missing text between "configuration" and "However"? [...] On that basis the RA snooping proposal, e.g. RA Guard, has merit, while approaches like manual configuration However RA Guard is not yet fully defined or available, while only certain managed switch equipment may support the required ACLs. p.12 Section 5.1: I was not sure if the following part is intended to be out of scope or is just mentioned to compare with the accidental rogue RA case: It is thus possible for an attacker to target one or more hosts on a shared medium without (potentially) a rogue multicast RA being observed elsewhere on the network (e.g. by a monitoring daemon). If it's the latter, it would be better to clarify the intent. p.13 Section 5.5: I understand the following text is a revision to address my previous comment, but technically it's still 100% clear: e.g. considering the '2 hour rule' of Section 5.5.3 of RFC4862 (though this applies to the valid lifetime not the router lifetime). We should ensure that the 2 hour rule only applies to valid "address" lifetime. Although the prefix lifetime doesn't officially use this qualifier (since a prefix only has "the lifetime"), it could be confusing as it's normally configured from the valid lifetime field of an RA prefix information option. So, I'd clearly say "valid address lifetime". p.14 Section 6: based on the intent of the revise, I'd rephrase "security risk" with "robustness issue" or something: Adding new DHCPv6 Default Gateway and Prefix Options would allow IPv6 host configuration by DHCP only, and be a method that IPv4 administrators are comfortable with (for better or worse), but this simply shifts the security risk elsewhere. And very minor nits follow: p.4 Section 1: there are duplicate "also"s. I'd remove one of them: appears more common in shared wireless environments, it is also seen on wired enterprise networks also. p.4 Section 1: I don't like undefined acronyms:-) the RA message. In addition, rogue RAs can cause hosts to assume wrong prefixes for their SLAAC addresses. In a case where there may Since this is the only occurrence, I'd simply say "wrong prefixes to be used for stateless address autoconfiguration". p.5 Section 2.2: s/an problem/a problem/ bridging two subnets together, causing an problem similar to VLAN p.7 Section 3.5: s/send/sends/ accidentally send out a rogue RA on the network has configured their p.8 Section 3.7: s/no thus/thus/ in the filter may become incorrect and no thus no method would be --- JINMEI, Tatuya Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. From janebukwa@yahoo.co.uk Sat Mar 14 03:15:17 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 952A03A67E5; Sat, 14 Mar 2009 03:15:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -30.294 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-30.294 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_80=2, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, INVALID_MSGID=1.9, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 vvLHy9FZxbV4; Sat, 14 Mar 2009 03:15:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cpc2-renf2-0-0-cust209.renf.cable.ntl.com (cpc2-renf2-0-0-cust209.renf.cable.ntl.com [82.10.4.210]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9069B3A68D2; Sat, 14 Mar 2009 03:15:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 1.56.106.214 by smtp.82.10.4.210; Sat, 14 Mar 2009 09:14:51 -0200 Message-ID: <8398ija4504XCDC> Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 06:15:51 -0500 From: "Muriel Ayala" To: "Wilfredo Tovar" Subject: March promo on watches Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Hello Hank How about buying yourself a two Omega watches the same day? It's not impossible, mostly when you can get them for a couple hundred bucks http://www.ruvujixem.cn Take an extra 15% off your purchase during month of March. http://www.ruvujixem.cn Our Omega have Weights/feels and looks exactly same as original. Sincerely, Mr Coleman From killerdeal@056.qcx.net Sat Mar 14 12:45:15 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E85BE3A6943 for ; Sat, 14 Mar 2009 12:45:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.268 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.268 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, HELO_EQ_CZ=0.445, HOST_EQ_BROADBND=1.118, HOST_EQ_CZ=0.904, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=1.778, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_04=0.172, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, SARE_FROM_DRUGS=1.666, SARE_UNI=0.591, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 9wMRDagzgsYx for ; Sat, 14 Mar 2009 12:45:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 44.61.broadband4.iol.cz (44.61.broadband4.iol.cz [85.71.61.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B8B8E3A682B for ; Sat, 14 Mar 2009 12:45:13 -0700 (PDT) To: Subject: Sales Receipt Amazon From: VIAGRA . Official Site MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090314194513.B8B8E3A682B@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 12:45:13 -0700 (PDT)
Men's Health wirzpBuild Maximum MUSCLE, STRENGTH, and POWER!
Try It FREE for 21 Days! ORDER NOW! Plus, get 2 FREE Bonus Gifts!
Dear v6ops-archive

Men's Health recommends


FREE gifts reserved for you: v6ops-archive@ietf.org
If you would prefer not to receive future information about special offers from Men's Health,
you may Unsubscribe.


Customer Service Department, 33 East Minor Street, Emmaus, PA 18098


Copyright, Men's Health
From ganegumpy@yahoo.co.uk Sat Mar 14 14:11:30 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9562C3A69E4; Sat, 14 Mar 2009 14:11:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -33.266 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-33.266 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HELO_EQ_NE_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, HOST_EQ_NE_JP=2.599, INVALID_MSGID=1.9, MSGID_SHORT=1.078, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_SBL=20, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 2Mw-CibEW+hB; Sat, 14 Mar 2009 14:11:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from EM114-51-2-109.pool.e-mobile.ne.jp (EM114-51-2-109.pool.e-mobile.ne.jp [114.51.2.109]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1E90A3A698D; Sat, 14 Mar 2009 14:11:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 231.55.66.100 by smtp.201.37.40.148; Sat, 14 Mar 2009 23:02:38 +0100 Message-ID: <354jaz807EQV> Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 17:11:38 -0500 From: "Dolores Underwood" To: "Dolores Underwood" Subject: Franck Muller better than you could imagine! Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Hello Dolores Winter is the time to get Breitling watch, and the only place to get top notch watches that look and perform exactly like the originals is http://www.iohxydne.cn Take an extra 15% off your purchase during month of March. http://www.iohxydne.cn Our Breitling watches have perfect weight and feel same as orginal. Sincerely, Mr Underwood From agnessscaldy@yahoo.co.uk Sat Mar 14 16:59:51 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C1573A6959; Sat, 14 Mar 2009 16:59:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -27.675 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-27.675 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FB_ADD_INCHES=2.131, FB_PENIS=1.66, FRT_PENIS1=3.592, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, INVALID_MSGID=1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_31=0.6, MANGLED_PENIS=2.3, MSGID_SHORT=1.078, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, SARE_ADLTOBFU=0.68, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 7XUpxUZ2GMUS; Sat, 14 Mar 2009 16:59:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from f054179168.adsl.alicedsl.de (f054179168.adsl.alicedsl.de [78.54.179.168]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B099828B23E; Sat, 14 Mar 2009 16:59:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 26.204.52.65 by smtp.78.54.179.168; Sat, 14 Mar 2009 18:58:23 -0600 Message-ID: <6630fj7689XLA> Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 20:00:23 -0500 From: "Lois Padilla" To: "Lois Padilla" Subject: Gain inches in few weeks! Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Hello Lois, Do you think your pen1s is too small? Now you can help yourself! We have incredible solution which will help you gain inches and make erections stronger in matter of weeks! http://www.nikezasow.cn From ganegumpy@yahoo.co.uk Sat Mar 14 20:01:18 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 948FD3A69AC; Sat, 14 Mar 2009 20:01:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -12.145 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.145 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, FRT_COCK=1.544, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_BR=0.955, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, HELO_EQ_TELESP=1.245, HOST_EQ_BR=1.295, INVALID_MSGID=1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, MANGLED_CCK=2.3, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_ADLTOBFU=0.68, SARE_OBFU_PART_OCK=1.666, SARE_RECV_SPAM_DOMN02=1.666, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 MxZccgqP3XIA; Sat, 14 Mar 2009 20:01:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 189-68-20-13.dsl.telesp.net.br (189-68-20-13.dsl.telesp.net.br [189.68.20.13]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3D21D3A6A2B; Sat, 14 Mar 2009 20:01:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 128.229.203.30 by smtp.189.68.20.13; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 02:52:44 -0100 Message-ID: <6794ucd96601BVQO> Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2009 23:01:44 -0500 From: "Helena Greer" To: "Marcie Napier" Subject: we3wee increase size Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Hello Viola, Don't you think your c0ck is too small? http://www.firezocub.cn Make your c0ck a tool of ASS destruction! http://www.firezocub.cn From lagura@ambergrissolutions.com Sun Mar 15 00:03:21 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC2FF3A68BA for ; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 00:03:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.153 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.153 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=1.778, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_04=0.172, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, RELAY_IS_220=2.118, SARE_FROM_DRUGS=1.666, SARE_UNI=0.591, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 OSLHiaUFdyRY for ; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 00:03:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 220-133-40-91.HINET-IP.hinet.net (220-133-40-91.HINET-IP.hinet.net [220.133.40.91]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id EE1F83A67A5 for ; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 00:03:18 -0700 (PDT) To: Subject: You've received an answer to your question From: VIAGRA . Official Site MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090315070319.EE1F83A67A5@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 00:03:18 -0700 (PDT)
Men's Health wirzpBuild Maximum MUSCLE, STRENGTH, and POWER!
Try It FREE for 21 Days! ORDER NOW! Plus, get 2 FREE Bonus Gifts!
Dear v6ops-archive

Men's Health recommends


FREE gifts reserved for you: v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org
If you would prefer not to receive future information about special offers from Men's Health,
you may Unsubscribe.


Customer Service Department, 33 East Minor Street, Emmaus, PA 18098


Copyright, Men's Health
From kurwajonte@yahoo.co.uk Sun Mar 15 04:55:04 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 969D93A6B10; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 04:55:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -32.257 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-32.257 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_DYNAMIC=1.144, HELO_EQ_RU=0.595, HOST_EQ_RU=0.875, INVALID_MSGID=1.9, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 GDzrBI0t66IS; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 04:55:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from net144.181.94-146.dynamic.omskdom.ru (net144.181.94-146.dynamic.omskdom.ru [94.181.144.146]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id BE8803A687C; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 04:54:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 186.36.35.55 by smtp.94.181.144.146; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 15:51:36 +0300 Message-ID: <1945ujk660536JLK> Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 07:55:36 -0500 From: "Dominick Pollock" To: "Lenny Langley" Subject: March promo on watches Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Hello Gloria Winter is the time to get Bvlgari watch, and the only place to get top notch watches that look and perform exactly like the originals is http://www.iodbrlye.cn With top notch customer service and super warranty, we stand behind our watches. http://www.iodbrlye.cn Our Bvlgari watches have perfect weight and feel same as orginal. Sincerely, Mr Ledford From agnesschinhao@yahoo.co.uk Sun Mar 15 09:11:08 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 882C73A6970; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 09:11:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -12.574 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FB_ADD_INCHES=2.131, FB_PENIS=1.66, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FRT_PENIS1=3.592, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_DYNAMIC_SPLIT_IP=3.493, HELO_EQ_IP_ADDR=1.119, INVALID_MSGID=1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_31=0.6, MANGLED_DICK=2.3, MANGLED_PENIS=2.3, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_ADLTOBFU=0.68, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 JZVrU8GqHv3h; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 09:11:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 93.102.43.43.rev.optimus.pt (93.102.43.43.rev.optimus.pt [93.102.43.43]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C57F23A6A59; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 09:10:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 76.71.206.199 by smtp.93.102.43.43; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 12:04:32 -0500 Message-ID: <981wpt629539DIF> Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 12:11:32 -0500 From: "Sheena Christie" To: "Molly Darling" Subject: d1ck increase size huge Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Hello Harry, Don't you think your pen1s is too small? http://www.cesiceman.cn Gain inches and width of your d1ck in a short time! http://www.cesiceman.cn No virus found in this outgoing message Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (4.0.0.26 - 10.068.014). http://www.pctools.com/free-antivirus/ From john.coolahan@120babes.com Sun Mar 15 09:27:12 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CFE93A6A7D for ; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 09:27:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.642 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.642 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=1.778, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_04=0.172, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_FROM_DRUGS=1.666, SARE_UNI=0.591, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 O1E+dUPrU95a for ; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 09:27:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from akg.ee.titech.ac.jp (unknown [59.177.75.224]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 134A63A677D for ; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 09:27:09 -0700 (PDT) To: Subject: Sales Receipt Amazon From: VIAGRA . Official Site MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090315162710.134A63A677D@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 09:27:09 -0700 (PDT)
Men's Health wirzpBuild Maximum MUSCLE, STRENGTH, and POWER!
Try It FREE for 21 Days! ORDER NOW! Plus, get 2 FREE Bonus Gifts!
Dear v6ops-archive

Men's Health recommends


FREE gifts reserved for you: v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org
If you would prefer not to receive future information about special offers from Men's Health,
you may Unsubscribe.


Customer Service Department, 33 East Minor Street, Emmaus, PA 18098


Copyright, Men's Health
From lne@aegon.hu Sun Mar 15 11:26:28 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBCB43A6BB5 for ; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 11:26:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -8.559 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=1.778, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_04=0.172, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_FROM_DRUGS=1.666, SARE_UNI=0.591, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 YOdOsbAQJqVN for ; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 11:26:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from amc.toshiba.co.jp (unknown [190.190.162.217]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B24AE3A699C for ; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 11:26:26 -0700 (PDT) To: Subject: Sales Order walmart.com From: VIAGRA . Official Site MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090315182626.B24AE3A699C@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 11:26:26 -0700 (PDT)
Men's Health wirzpBuild Maximum MUSCLE, STRENGTH, and POWER!
Try It FREE for 21 Days! ORDER NOW! Plus, get 2 FREE Bonus Gifts!
Dear v6ops-archive

Men's Health recommends


FREE gifts reserved for you: v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org
If you would prefer not to receive future information about special offers from Men's Health,
you may Unsubscribe.


Customer Service Department, 33 East Minor Street, Emmaus, PA 18098


Copyright, Men's Health
From krissiethepooh@advlearn.com Sun Mar 15 12:16:52 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB3C628C0DD for ; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 12:16:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.007 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.007 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HELO_EQ_NE_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, HOST_EQ_NE_JP=2.599, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=1.778, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_04=0.172, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RELAY_IS_220=2.118, SARE_FROM_DRUGS=1.666, SARE_UNI=0.591, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 Zm3upkFF35K2 for ; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 12:16:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from p3239-adsau06atuta2-acca.aichi.ocn.ne.jp (p3239-adsau06atuta2-acca.aichi.ocn.ne.jp [220.111.234.239]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C4F8328C0CE for ; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 12:16:50 -0700 (PDT) To: Subject: Email Handling Opinion Needed From: VIAGRA . Official Site MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090315191650.C4F8328C0CE@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 12:16:50 -0700 (PDT)
Men's Health wirzpBuild Maximum MUSCLE, STRENGTH, and POWER!
Try It FREE for 21 Days! ORDER NOW! Plus, get 2 FREE Bonus Gifts!
Dear v6ops-archive

Men's Health recommends


FREE gifts reserved for you: v6ops-archive@ietf.org
If you would prefer not to receive future information about special offers from Men's Health,
you may Unsubscribe.


Customer Service Department, 33 East Minor Street, Emmaus, PA 18098


Copyright, Men's Health
From jbt@aacanet.org Sun Mar 15 13:00:14 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 731773A6B92 for ; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 13:00:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.353 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.353 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_BR=0.955, HELO_MISMATCH_BR=2.4, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=1.778, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_04=0.172, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_FROM_DRUGS=1.666, SARE_UNI=0.591, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 fnicDJOkEMwF for ; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 13:00:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from accortour.com.br (unknown [88.250.8.131]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 184BA3A68DA for ; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 13:00:09 -0700 (PDT) To: Subject: Email Handling Opinion Needed From: VIAGRA . Official Site MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090315200011.184BA3A68DA@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 13:00:09 -0700 (PDT)
Men's Health wirzpBuild Maximum MUSCLE, STRENGTH, and POWER!
Try It FREE for 21 Days! ORDER NOW! Plus, get 2 FREE Bonus Gifts!
Dear v6ops-archive

Men's Health recommends


FREE gifts reserved for you: v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org
If you would prefer not to receive future information about special offers from Men's Health,
you may Unsubscribe.


Customer Service Department, 33 East Minor Street, Emmaus, PA 18098


Copyright, Men's Health
From bobbyallen1984@yahoo.co.uk Sun Mar 15 18:04:45 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4CF63A6B6A; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 18:04:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -38.986 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-38.986 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, INVALID_MSGID=1.9, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, MSGID_SHORT=1.078, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 3BFU3KkQ9pec; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 18:04:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from c-67-169-151-209.hsd1.ca.comcast.net (c-67-169-151-209.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [67.169.151.209]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E61FB3A6BA6; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 18:04:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 232.159.151.224 by smtp.67.169.151.209; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 03:04:24 +0100 Message-ID: <0632qn3438PZC> Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 21:05:24 -0500 From: "Mariano Hickey" To: "Mariano Hickey" Subject: IWC rep is a ultimate gift Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Hello Mariano Winter is the time to get Vacheron Constantin watch, and the only place to get top notch watches that look and perform exactly like the originals is http://www.ionchcje.cn Take advantage of our winter specials and get yourself Vacheron Constantin watch that you've always wanted! http://www.ionchcje.cn Our Vacheron Constantin have all appropriate markings, wordings and engravings same as orginal. Sincerely, Mr Hickey From agnesschinhao@yahoo.co.uk Sun Mar 15 23:01:00 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ABE228C100; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 23:01:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.37 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.37 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FB_ADD_INCHES=2.131, FB_PENIS=1.66, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, FRT_COCK=1.544, FRT_PENIS1=3.592, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_DYNAMIC=1.144, INVALID_MSGID=1.9, J_CHICKENPOX_12=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_31=0.6, MANGLED_CCK=2.3, MANGLED_PENIS=2.3, MSGID_SHORT=1.078, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_ADLTOBFU=0.68, SARE_ADLTSUB1=1.66, SARE_ADLTSUB2=1.23, SARE_OBFU_PART_OCK=1.666, SARE_OBFU_PENIS_SUB=3.333, SARE_RECV_SPAM_DOMN0b=1.666, SUBJECT_FUZZY_PENIS=3.096, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 SlNHxW85LoXD; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 23:01:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 218-167-6-23.dynamic.hinet.net (218-167-6-23.dynamic.hinet.net [218.167.6.23]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0855428C12D; Sun, 15 Mar 2009 23:00:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 234.132.50.197 by smtp.218.167.6.23; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 04:59:23 -0200 Message-ID: <5070ba194XJE> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 02:01:23 -0500 From: "Lyman Williamson" To: "Alisha Diaz" Subject: pen1s enlarge huge Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Hello Quinn, We have solution for your small c0ck problem http://www.gibapiluj.cn Gain inches and width of your pen1s in a short time! http://www.gibapiluj.cn From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 16 06:01:27 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED6843A6B14 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 06:01:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.444 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.444 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.157, BAYES_40=-0.185, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 man0V4IZSf-S for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 06:01:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6A4C3A677D for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 06:01:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LjCM6-000Lbx-3E for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:55:46 +0000 Received: from [217.169.121.21] (helo=GRFEDG702RM001.telecomitalia.it) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LjCLz-000LbE-Vw for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:55:42 +0000 Received: from grfhub702rm001.griffon.local (10.19.3.9) by GRFEDG702RM001.telecomitalia.it (10.173.88.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.340.0; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:53:56 +0100 Received: from GRFMBX702RM001.griffon.local ([10.19.3.19]) by grfhub702rm001.griffon.local ([10.19.9.235]) with mapi; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:55:36 +0100 From: Maglione Roberta To: "'Hemant Singh (shemant)'" , "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" CC: IPv6 Operations Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:55:36 +0100 Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Thread-Topic: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Thread-Index: AcmdcKeRcryZ/MspT8qEcavULU5jWgAA1IrwACOcU6AAAwEyYAAmvCPAAeD65lA= Message-ID: References: <110c01c99e03$c46343a0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <021d01c99e10$888458d0$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: 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 Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Hello, I have a question on section 5: could you please explain why stateful DHCPv6 is the recommended method for = assigning a global IPv6 address to the WAN interface? Are you suggesting e= xcluding the possibility to use SLAAC to number WAN interface? Thanks, Best Regards, Roberta -----Original Message----- From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Hemant Singh (shemant) Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 11:27 PM To: IPv6 Operations Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); Wes Beebee (wbeebee) Subject: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04.txt Sorry, we forgot that the -00 submission for I-D's was March 4th, 2009 and thus did not release a draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-00.txt. As folks may know this draft is a work item of the v6ops WG as of the Minneapolis IETF during November 2008. Soon as IETF opens up -00 submission again during the March IETF, we will submit the -00 version of this draft. We didn't want to wait any longer to release this new version so that folks could get a few weeks of review before IETF 74. Gross items taken care of in this version. 1. Added DS-Lite section to the draft. 2. Added text to cater to Brian Carpenter's comment that the CPE Rtr should not hard code it's data forwarding table to existing 200::/3 prefix. 3. Added more explanatory text to strong host model portion of the document to address question raised by Dave Thaler at the mike during IETF 73. 4. Augmented the Abstract to cater to comments from the mike during IETF 73 as to how other task forces may use this document. 5. Added ND Proxy section catering to comments from Teemu. Hemant & Wes Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle per= sone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dall= a conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abb= iate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di dar= ne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione= , Grazie. This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged = information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, pri= nting or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended r= ecipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sen= der by return e-mail, Thanks. From kallal@agt.net Mon Mar 16 06:48:49 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DEFF28C0F6 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 06:48:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -43.022 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-43.022 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.561, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02=0.383, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 Z6Ir6rMKE7d9 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 06:48:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 155-127.citylan.bg (155-127.citylan.bg [87.118.155.127]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 667A13A63EC for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 06:48:46 -0700 (PDT) To: Subject: You've received an answer to your question From: MensHealth.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090316134847.667A13A63EC@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 06:48:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subscribe to Men's Health Today!



Subscribe to Men's Health Today!





To your health,


David Zinczenko
Editor-in-Chief
Subscribe to Men's Health Today!
Unsubscribe | Your Privacy Rights

¿ 2008 Rodale Inc., all rights reserved.
Customer Service Dept., 33 East Minor Street, Emmaus, PA 18098
From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 16 07:12:22 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A134128C172 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 07:12:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.646 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.646 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.151, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 wDcvohk0wz0v for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 07:12:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B81A28C121 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 07:12:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LjDVn-0001gN-R9 for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:09:51 +0000 Received: from [171.68.10.86] (helo=sj-iport-4.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LjDVc-0001ec-QQ for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:09:49 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,373,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="31622225" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Mar 2009 14:09:40 +0000 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2GE9eUS025766; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 07:09:40 -0700 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2GE9V1x015906; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:09:40 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.40]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:09:34 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 10:09:33 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Thread-Index: AcmdcKeRcryZ/MspT8qEcavULU5jWgAA1IrwACOcU6AAAwEyYAAmvCPAAeD65lAABLp0UA== References: <110c01c99e03$c46343a0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <021d01c99e10$888458d0$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" To: "Maglione Roberta" , "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" Cc: "IPv6 Operations" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Mar 2009 14:09:34.0201 (UTC) FILETIME=[D5368E90:01C9A640] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=887; t=1237212580; x=1238076580; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20Posted=20a=20new=20copy=20of=20CPE=20Rt r=20draft |Sender:=20; bh=t6h4K25fxJs5VKISO7SN2pauS0tle5QWcj0cmJKMjJs=; b=s0HuYPG2eaIA4G4i9dDy+n7tidbrcFkVp2P1erFb5YDpZM5eBFUUwndkm4 vl7y7L/4uugMqTGBI3ZOdxe7aKVomRC4v419AJKHQRq6MwHijS/nQ7aYRDHt Or5E4fb5C1; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=shemant@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: >Hello, > I have a question on section 5: >could you please explain why stateful DHCPv6 is the recommended method for assigning a global IPv6 address to the WAN interface? Are you suggesting >excluding the possibility to use SLAAC to number WAN interface? No, we are not at all suggesting that the WAN interface not acquire its global IPv6 address using SLAAC. Either of SLAAC or stateful DHCPv6 is fine for the WAN interface to acquire its global address with. We only mandate stateful DHCPv6 if the CPE Rtr has to acquire an IA_PD option. Please also note this sentence from section 5. [Further, in the numbered model, we recommend the CPE Router WAN interface acquire its global IPv6 address using stateful DHCPv6 for administrative control of the router.] A SP may want more administrative control of the CPE Rtr and DHCPv6 provides that. =20 Hemant From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 16 11:18:33 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 002EE3A6A21 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:18:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.397 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.397 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.202, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 hgT5OuzDE6vc for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:18:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63AD23A6358 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:18:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LjHKg-000JON-5e for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:14:38 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.70] (helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LjHKa-000JO0-MI for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:14:35 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,374,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="156557654" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Mar 2009 18:14:32 +0000 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2GIEWjU021546; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:14:32 -0700 Received: from stealth-10-32-244-222.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-244-222.cisco.com [10.32.244.222]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2GIEVNi019855; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:14:31 GMT Cc: Tim Chown , Stig Venaas , IPv6 Operations , Ron Bonica Message-Id: <232CBF47-2E31-4CA1-AE25-E0B19C3F2532@cisco.com> From: Fred Baker To: =?UTF-8?Q?JINMEI_Tatuya_/_=E7=A5=9E=E6=98=8E=E9=81=94=E5=93=89?= In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: draft-chown-v6ops-rogue-ra-03 (Re: Agenda issue) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:14:31 -0700 References: <5440BA13-C799-492C-91A0-3537ACB855A3@cisco.com> <20090309222420.GG28666@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=5863; t=1237227272; x=1238091272; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20draft-chown-v6ops-rogue-ra-03=20(Re=3A= 20Agenda=20issue) |Sender:=20; bh=IF1DVP7duJPCu8DMmhwppIlsi1vWXkA40RcR0+OkzXw=; b=ESH/AbpOxq1w3n7h4xWPhxaImLM0pa+yDNfzH5SbE62frG+BrqrleeB6L5 e4atEET1FH87C/Wbaqt6lua6NdOIK7IBriDxPn/536ERxgEcyJ1U43C2qsk0 O+mdQxuCLo; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: You said that you don't know the plan for this draft. Let me tell you =20= *my* plan, and what I thought the WG told was its plan. If I have it =20 wrong, I would rather know now. We have two drafts before the house: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chown-v6ops-rogue-ra "Rogue IPv6 Router Advertisement Problem Statement", Tim Chown, =20 Stig Venaas, 9-Mar-09, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ra-guard "IPv6 RA-Guard", Eric Levy-Abegnoli, Gunter Van de Velde, Chip =20 Popoviciu, Janos Mohacsi, 5-Mar-09, Tim's is essentially a problem statement, and the other is a proposed =20= operational solution. Note that it is not a protocol, although it has =20= a state machine; it is a behavior of a system within a context. We =20 have been through last call on both drafts, and I have been planning =20 to send both to Ron to publish as informational RFCs whenever they got =20= updated according to the comments. You have made new comments on Tim's problem statement here. My =20 question is one of diminishing returns - would you rather that Tim =20 updated the draft (in April) before I sent the thing to Ron, or should =20= Ron consider these to be early "IETF last call" comments? If you want =20= these handled before sending this to Ron, do you expect to make =20 additional comments when he posts that draft? At what point would you =20= agree that the problem statement is "close enough"? On Mar 13, 2009, at 8:21 PM, JINMEI Tatuya / =E7=A5=9E=E6=98=8E=E9=81=94=E5= =93=89 wrote: > At Mon, 9 Mar 2009 22:24:20 +0000, > Tim Chown wrote: > >>> -rw-rw-r-- 1 fred fred 30429 Nov 3 14:26 draft-chown-v6ops-=20 >>> rogue- >>> ra-02.txt >> >> Stig and I have released a new version, in which we attempt to =20 >> answer the >> list comments: >> >> * Switched focus to accidental RAs - Jinmei >> * Clarified valid lifetime >> * Reworded DHCP gateway text, noted new draft by Thomas >> * Added isolation text - Bob H >> * SeND deployment issues expanded - Thomas >> * DHCPv6 gateway reworded - emphasised shifting problem >> >> Plus other minor edits and reoriganising. > > I've read the 03 version, and confirmed that my concern on the > previous version was clearly addressed (thanks!). I don't know the > intended next step of this document, whether to adopt it as a wg item > or to submit it to the IESG, but I support it in either case. > > I have some minor (mostly) editorial comments on 03 as follows: > > p.8 Section 3.8: I guess the following paragraph were intended to be > out of scope (simply removed?) according to the revised focus of this > document: > > In contrast though, an attacker might use such a tool to learn about > prefixes being advertised on a link and to deprecate the 'good' =20 > RA(s) > in favour of their bogus RA(s). > > p.11 Section 4: I failed to parse the following part. There is > perhaps missing text between "configuration" and "However"? > > [...] On that basis the RA snooping proposal, e.g. RA > Guard, has merit, while approaches like manual configuration However > RA Guard is not yet fully defined or available, while only certain > managed switch equipment may support the required ACLs. > > p.12 Section 5.1: I was not sure if the following part is intended to > be out of scope or is just mentioned to compare with the accidental > rogue RA case: > > It is > thus possible for an attacker to target one or more hosts on a =20 > shared > medium without (potentially) a rogue multicast RA being observed > elsewhere on the network (e.g. by a monitoring daemon). > > If it's the latter, it would be better to clarify the intent. > > p.13 Section 5.5: I understand the following text is a revision to > address my previous comment, but technically it's still 100% clear: > > e.g. considering the '2 > hour rule' of Section 5.5.3 of RFC4862 (though this applies to the > valid lifetime not the router lifetime). We should ensure that > > the 2 hour rule only applies to valid "address" lifetime. Although > the prefix lifetime doesn't officially use this qualifier (since > a prefix only has "the lifetime"), it could be confusing as it's > normally configured from the valid lifetime field of an RA prefix > information option. So, I'd clearly say "valid address lifetime". > > p.14 Section 6: based on the intent of the revise, I'd rephrase > "security risk" with "robustness issue" or something: > > Adding new DHCPv6 Default Gateway and Prefix Options would allow =20 > IPv6 > host configuration by DHCP only, and be a method that IPv4 > administrators are comfortable with (for better or worse), but this > simply shifts the security risk elsewhere. > > And very minor nits follow: > > p.4 Section 1: there are duplicate "also"s. I'd remove one of them: > > appears more common in shared wireless environments, it is also seen > on wired enterprise networks also. > > p.4 Section 1: I don't like undefined acronyms:-) > > the RA message. In addition, rogue RAs can cause hosts to assume > wrong prefixes for their SLAAC addresses. In a case where there may > > Since this is the only occurrence, I'd simply say "wrong prefixes to > be used for stateless address autoconfiguration". > > p.5 Section 2.2: s/an problem/a problem/ > > bridging two subnets together, causing an problem similar to VLAN > > p.7 Section 3.5: s/send/sends/ > > accidentally send out a rogue RA on the network has configured their > > p.8 Section 3.7: s/no thus/thus/ > > in the filter may become incorrect and no thus no method would be > > --- > JINMEI, Tatuya > Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 16 11:23:13 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD7623A6BAE for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:23:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.021 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.021 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.526, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 WppKmZP9+110 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:23:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C335F3A6A21 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:23:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LjHSh-000KGl-Qg for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:22:55 +0000 Received: from [64.102.122.149] (helo=rtp-iport-2.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LjHSZ-000KFM-5f for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:22:53 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,374,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="39777377" Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Mar 2009 18:22:45 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2GIMjtP021007; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 14:22:45 -0400 Received: from stealth-10-32-244-222.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-244-222.cisco.com [10.32.244.222]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2GIMiFS001659; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:22:44 GMT Cc: "'Hemant Singh (shemant)'" , "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" , IPv6 Operations Message-Id: From: Fred Baker To: Maglione Roberta In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:22:42 -0700 References: <110c01c99e03$c46343a0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <021d01c99e10$888458d0$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1440; t=1237227765; x=1238091765; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20Posted=20a=20new=20copy=20of=20CPE=20Rt r=20draft |Sender:=20 |To:=20Maglione=20Roberta=20; bh=plSkOGJhuDefxAfo4peIAbqrh2e7hg6+KdB+WPWfdqM=; b=GSm37YOXX8kvrPfaUj6qSJ9kgDjwVbOTtzj2SvYfFBpM/nJxz2xNHrmaHk WRUUnLIkfhgxdH1dIOYRzv5+T3hf/Hu09x87dhwwQA0mtgMCoq+rCKVV/p55 fs4gWxlOVQ; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Mar 16, 2009, at 5:55 AM, Maglione Roberta wrote: > could you please explain why stateful DHCPv6 is the recommended > method for assigning a global IPv6 address to the WAN interface? > Are you suggesting excluding the possibility to use SLAAC to number > WAN interface? I don't understand him to be *precluding* anything. However, I do believe that he is saying that an ISP generally has more to configure on a CPE router than the interface address; it will have the recommended DNS server, the prefix that the SOHO/Residence will subnet internally, if DS-Lite is in use it will have the necessary information to configure a tunnel, and so on. He is saying that if that is the case, one may as well get the interface address from the DHCP server as well. I think the question before the house is whether the ISPs, such as Telecom Italia, agree with that viewpoint. Certainly you can *use* SLAAC in your network. Would you rather the specification *recommend* SLAAC? If so, do you have a recommendation regarding the other matters? Would you prefer that the document simply recommend that CPE equipment support both options? I am not expressing an opinion here; I know of networks in which DHCP seems like a better choice and networks in which SLAAC is a perfectly reasonable solution. I think it is important that you - and other ISPs - state their opinions however. From andrewjonas35@yahoo.co.uk Mon Mar 16 12:30:56 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F2E43A69DD; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:30:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -47.618 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-47.618 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, INVALID_MSGID=1.9, MSGID_SHORT=1.078, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 o+tL+zh2fRFH; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:30:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ozf77-2-82-243-202-4.fbx.proxad.net (ozf77-2-82-243-202-4.fbx.proxad.net [82.243.202.4]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B98F03A6888; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 12:30:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 80.20.122.198 by smtp.82.243.202.4; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:22:29 -0500 Message-ID: <698jbs680GSX> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:31:29 -0500 From: "Mitch Drake" To: "Mitch Drake" Subject: The affordable watch alternative Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Hello Mitch Looking for a Jaeger LeCoultre watch that no one can tell from the original? You're in luck, because we have the best copies http://www.iorkxnge.cn Take advantage of our winter specials and get yourself Jaeger LeCoultre watch that you've always wanted! http://www.iorkxnge.cn Our Jaeger LeCoultre have Weights/feels and looks exactly same as original. Sincerely, Mr Drake From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 16 13:41:44 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D60F03A6C03 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:41:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.039 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.039 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.362, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RDNS_NONE=0.1, RELAY_IS_203=0.994] 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 7Eu5hMolhNP7 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:41:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03E593A6B14 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:41:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LjJad-0003HJ-Dn for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 20:39:15 +0000 Received: from [203.6.132.75] (helo=smtp1.mail.adnap.net.au) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LjJaW-0003Gg-4C for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 20:39:10 +0000 Received: from 219-90-156-134.ip.adam.com.au ([219.90.156.134] helo=opy.nosense.org) by smtp1.mail.adnap.net.au with esmtp (Exim 4.63 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LjJaN-0009U1-DF; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 07:08:59 +1030 Received: from opy.nosense.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by opy.nosense.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8100149298; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 07:08:58 +1030 (CST) Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 07:08:58 +1030 From: Mark Smith To: Fred Baker Cc: Maglione Roberta , "'Hemant Singh (shemant)'" , "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" , IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Message-Id: <20090317070858.35fe6070.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> In-Reply-To: References: <110c01c99e03$c46343a0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <021d01c99e10$888458d0$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.14.7; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) X-Location: Lower Mitcham, South Australia, 5062 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:22:42 -0700 Fred Baker wrote: > > On Mar 16, 2009, at 5:55 AM, Maglione Roberta wrote: > > > could you please explain why stateful DHCPv6 is the recommended > > method for assigning a global IPv6 address to the WAN interface? > > Are you suggesting excluding the possibility to use SLAAC to number > > WAN interface? > > I don't understand him to be *precluding* anything. However, I do > believe that he is saying that an ISP generally has more to configure > on a CPE router than the interface address; it will have the > recommended DNS server, the prefix that the SOHO/Residence will subnet > internally, if DS-Lite is in use it will have the necessary > information to configure a tunnel, and so on. He is saying that if > that is the case, one may as well get the interface address from the > DHCP server as well. > > I think the question before the house is whether the ISPs, such as > Telecom Italia, agree with that viewpoint. Certainly you can *use* > SLAAC in your network. Would you rather the specification *recommend* > SLAAC? If so, do you have a recommendation regarding the other > matters? Would you prefer that the document simply recommend that CPE > equipment support both options? > > I am not expressing an opinion here; I know of networks in which DHCP > seems like a better choice and networks in which SLAAC is a perfectly > reasonable solution. I think it is important that you - and other ISPs > - state their opinions however. > (not representing a ISP here, but work at one, and these sorts of issues are some of the ones I have to worry about) I think DHCP is the better option. The link to the customer's WAN interface is the first customer unique or specific part of the network connection, so having some non-upstream-router harder or hard state in your management systems i.e. DHCP database, can make troubleshooting and billing easier. It also encourages the model that ISPs give out subnets to all customers (unless there is a PD option for RAs that I'm not aware of), not end-node addresses. Regards, Mark. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 16 13:55:44 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDFE128C1BC for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:55:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.276 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.276 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.782, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 wGfES2KsNyuD for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:55:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E29D3A684E for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:55:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LjJq7-0004Fd-Gp for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 20:55:15 +0000 Received: from [216.82.241.147] (helo=mail146.messagelabs.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LjJq1-0004FC-9b for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 20:55:12 +0000 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: bs7652@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-8.tower-146.messagelabs.com!1237236908!11223064!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.0.0; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.53] Received: (qmail 25893 invoked from network); 16 Mar 2009 20:55:08 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.53) by server-8.tower-146.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 16 Mar 2009 20:55:08 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n2GKt50p018562; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:55:06 -0400 Received: from 01GAF5142010623.AD.BLS.COM (01GAF5142010623.ad.bls.com [139.76.131.87]) by mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with SMTP id n2GKt0iD018476; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:55:00 -0400 Received: from 01NC27689010627.AD.BLS.COM ([90.144.44.202]) by 01GAF5142010623.AD.BLS.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:55:00 -0400 Received: from 01NC27689010641.AD.BLS.COM ([90.144.44.103]) by 01NC27689010627.AD.BLS.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:54:59 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.3168 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9A679.78377E06" Subject: Re: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:54:59 -0400 Message-ID: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA08AB7AA4@crexc41p> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft thread-index: AcmmZhTG4MvkwEwgTNGbXViIpuMxSgAE2OgU From: "Stark, Barbara" To: , CC: , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Mar 2009 20:54:59.0931 (UTC) FILETIME=[787A62B0:01C9A679] Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9A679.78377E06 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In Broadband Forum, service providers there have so far agreed that the = generic BBF cpe router will support unnumbered and numbered (SLAAC and = DHCP). The CPE router will expect prefix delegation by DHCP (and other = options), so if DHCPv6 isn't used for stateful address, it will still be = used statelessly. The router will be prepared to respond according to = what the access network tells it to do, and has no preference for which = mode it operates in.=20 Barbara ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org To: Maglione Roberta Cc: 'Hemant Singh (shemant)' ; Wes Beebee (wbeebee) = ; IPv6 Operations Sent: Mon Mar 16 14:22:42 2009 Subject: Re: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft On Mar 16, 2009, at 5:55 AM, Maglione Roberta wrote: > could you please explain why stateful DHCPv6 is the recommended =20 > method for assigning a global IPv6 address to the WAN interface? =20 > Are you suggesting excluding the possibility to use SLAAC to number =20 > WAN interface? I don't understand him to be *precluding* anything. However, I do =20 believe that he is saying that an ISP generally has more to configure =20 on a CPE router than the interface address; it will have the =20 recommended DNS server, the prefix that the SOHO/Residence will subnet =20 internally, if DS-Lite is in use it will have the necessary =20 information to configure a tunnel, and so on. He is saying that if =20 that is the case, one may as well get the interface address from the =20 DHCP server as well. I think the question before the house is whether the ISPs, such as =20 Telecom Italia, agree with that viewpoint. Certainly you can *use* =20 SLAAC in your network. Would you rather the specification *recommend* =20 SLAAC? If so, do you have a recommendation regarding the other =20 matters? Would you prefer that the document simply recommend that CPE =20 equipment support both options? I am not expressing an opinion here; I know of networks in which DHCP =20 seems like a better choice and networks in which SLAAC is a perfectly =20 reasonable solution. I think it is important that you - and other ISPs =20 - state their opinions however. ***** The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to = which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or = privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other = use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by = persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If = you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the = material from all computers. GA623 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9A679.78377E06 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft

In Broadband Forum, service providers there have so = far agreed that the generic BBF cpe router will support unnumbered and = numbered (SLAAC and DHCP). The CPE router will expect prefix delegation = by DHCP (and other options), so if DHCPv6 isn't used for stateful = address, it will still be used statelessly. The router will be prepared = to respond according to what the access network tells it to do, and has = no preference for which mode it operates in.
Barbara

----- Original Message -----
From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
To: Maglione Roberta <roberta.maglione@telecomitalia.it>
Cc: 'Hemant Singh (shemant)' <shemant@cisco.com>; Wes Beebee = (wbeebee) <wbeebee@cisco.com>; IPv6 Operations = <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Mon Mar 16 14:22:42 2009
Subject: Re: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft


On Mar 16, 2009, at 5:55 AM, Maglione Roberta wrote:

> could you please explain why stateful DHCPv6 is the = recommended 
> method for assigning a global IPv6 address to the  WAN = interface? 
> Are you suggesting excluding the possibility to use SLAAC to = number 
> WAN interface?

I don't understand him to be *precluding* anything. However, I = do 
believe that he is saying that an ISP generally has more to = configure 
on a CPE router than the interface address; it will have the 
recommended DNS server, the prefix that the SOHO/Residence will = subnet 
internally, if DS-Lite is in use it will have the necessary 
information to configure a tunnel, and so on. He is saying that = if 
that is the case, one may as well get the interface address from = the 
DHCP server as well.

I think the question before the house is whether the ISPs, such = as 
Telecom Italia, agree with that viewpoint. Certainly you can = *use* 
SLAAC in your network. Would you rather the specification = *recommend* 
SLAAC? If so, do you have a recommendation regarding the other 
matters? Would you prefer that the document simply recommend that = CPE 
equipment support both options?

I am not expressing an opinion here; I know of networks in which = DHCP 
seems like a better choice and networks in which SLAAC is a = perfectly 
reasonable solution. I think it is important that you - and other = ISPs 
- state their opinions however.

*****

The information = transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is = addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged = material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or = taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or = entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you = received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the = material from all computers. GA623

 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9A679.78377E06-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 16 16:36:04 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78B4928C159 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:36:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -99.325 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.325 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 TORNlF15MM+I for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:36:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9878328C154 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:36:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LjMHm-000C73-Le for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:31:58 +0000 Received: from [2001:4f8:3:36::162] (helo=mon.jinmei.org) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LjMHh-000C6e-Aw for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:31:55 +0000 Received: from jmb.jinmei.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:bb:217:f2ff:fee0:a91f]) by mon.jinmei.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB7FC33C2E; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:31:51 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:31:51 -0700 Message-ID: From: JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= To: Fred Baker Cc: Tim Chown , Stig Venaas , IPv6 Operations , Ron Bonica Subject: Re: draft-chown-v6ops-rogue-ra-03 (Re: Agenda issue) In-Reply-To: <232CBF47-2E31-4CA1-AE25-E0B19C3F2532@cisco.com> References: <5440BA13-C799-492C-91A0-3537ACB855A3@cisco.com> <20090309222420.GG28666@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk> <232CBF47-2E31-4CA1-AE25-E0B19C3F2532@cisco.com> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) Emacs/22.1 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: At Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:14:31 -0700, Fred Baker wrote: > You have made new comments on Tim's problem statement here. My > question is one of diminishing returns - would you rather that Tim > updated the draft (in April) before I sent the thing to Ron, or should > Ron consider these to be early "IETF last call" comments? If you want I actually don't care, but at least I wouldn't require updating it before you send it to Ron. My latest comments are mostly editorial and (I believe) can be addressed later with IESG comments. > these handled before sending this to Ron, do you expect to make > additional comments when he posts that draft? At what point would you > agree that the problem statement is "close enough"? --- JINMEI, Tatuya Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Mar 17 03:35:56 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3282B3A684C for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 03:35:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.989 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.989 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.402, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 gVVEWTs6YXsD for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 03:35:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEBF03A68D1 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 03:35:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LjWYt-000EXW-Jj for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:30:19 +0000 Received: from [217.169.121.21] (helo=GRFEDG702RM001.telecomitalia.it) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LjWYk-000EWe-0g for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:30:12 +0000 Received: from grfhub702rm001.griffon.local (10.19.3.9) by GRFEDG702RM001.telecomitalia.it (10.173.88.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.340.0; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:28:25 +0100 Received: from GRFMBX702RM001.griffon.local ([10.19.3.19]) by grfhub702rm001.griffon.local ([10.19.9.235]) with mapi; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:30:05 +0100 From: Maglione Roberta To: 'Mark Smith' , Fred Baker , "'Hemant Singh (shemant)'" CC: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" , IPv6 Operations Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:30:04 +0100 Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Thread-Topic: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Thread-Index: Acmmd0RH45ja3dgxTYKFWBX9qQoGaAAb64Ag Message-ID: References: <110c01c99e03$c46343a0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <021d01c99e10$888458d0$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <20090317070858.35fe6070.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> In-Reply-To: <20090317070858.35fe6070.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> 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 Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Hello, I agree with you on two aspects: - in a broadband access environment the CPE router requires not only the IP= v6 address but also additional configuration info like DNS, NTP and so on, = and I agree DHCP is a good tool to be used for this purpose. - as SP, we need to have centralized administrative control of the CPE rout= er both to centralize the prefix distribution and to simplify, as you point= ed out, troubleshooting and billing procedures. My point is that the DHCP S= erver is not the only possible centralized point of our network. Today for = IPv4 we can use AAA Radius server to store subscribers profile, thus moving= to IPv6 one option could be to keep a similar approach and store IPv6 pref= ix in AAA radius server then use RADIUS attributes to influence DHCP tasks. The difference I see between using SLAAC vs steful DHCPv6 to number WAN lin= k comes in the picture if you consider both a scenario where there is a rou= ted CPE and a scenario where there are hosts directly connected to the SP n= etwork (you can see this second case either like a migration step where som= e customers still have an old IPv4 only CPE that simply behaves as bridge f= or IPv6 connections or a Wimax access where there is no CPE.) . When I use= WAN numbered model I need to provide to my customer at least one IPv6 addr= ess for the WAN link and delegate a prefix to number the home network, from= the AAA RADIUS perspective it would be desirable to use a common address a= llocation method in both scenarios described above. If I use SLAAC + DHCP-P= D I do not need to know at the session set up time if my customer has a rou= ted CPE thus that /64 is used to number the WAN link or if there is an host= behind a legacy IPv4 only CPE thus that /64 is used to number the host int= erface. In both cases my AAA Radius Server will have a /64 for SLAAC and a = /x (probably /56) for DHCP PD. In both scenarios DHCP stateless is still us= ed to obtain other configuration parameters. In my opinion even with SLAAC using AAA RADIUS you can achieve centralized = administrative control. Any comments? > Would you rather the specification *recommend* SLAAC? If so, do you have = a recommendation regarding > the other matters? Would you prefer that the d= ocument simply recommend that CPE equipment support > both options? I'm not saying one approach is better than other I was trying to understan= d the reasons behind the recommendation made in the draft. You may consider= the scenario I described before out of scope, but I would prefer the docum= ent recommend that CPE equipment support both SLAAC and stateful DHCPv6. Anyway I interesting in hearing both your comments and additional opinions. Thanks, Best Regards, Roberta -----Original Message----- From: Mark Smith [mailto:ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org] Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 9:39 PM To: Fred Baker Cc: Maglione Roberta; 'Hemant Singh (shemant)'; Wes Beebee (wbeebee); IPv6 = Operations Subject: Re: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:22:42 -0700 Fred Baker wrote: > > On Mar 16, 2009, at 5:55 AM, Maglione Roberta wrote: > > > could you please explain why stateful DHCPv6 is the recommended > > method for assigning a global IPv6 address to the WAN interface? > > Are you suggesting excluding the possibility to use SLAAC to number > > WAN interface? > > I don't understand him to be *precluding* anything. However, I do > believe that he is saying that an ISP generally has more to configure > on a CPE router than the interface address; it will have the > recommended DNS server, the prefix that the SOHO/Residence will subnet > internally, if DS-Lite is in use it will have the necessary > information to configure a tunnel, and so on. He is saying that if > that is the case, one may as well get the interface address from the > DHCP server as well. > > I think the question before the house is whether the ISPs, such as > Telecom Italia, agree with that viewpoint. Certainly you can *use* > SLAAC in your network. Would you rather the specification *recommend* > SLAAC? If so, do you have a recommendation regarding the other > matters? Would you prefer that the document simply recommend that CPE > equipment support both options? > > I am not expressing an opinion here; I know of networks in which DHCP > seems like a better choice and networks in which SLAAC is a perfectly > reasonable solution. I think it is important that you - and other ISPs > - state their opinions however. > (not representing a ISP here, but work at one, and these sorts of issues are some of the ones I have to worry about) I think DHCP is the better option. The link to the customer's WAN interface is the first customer unique or specific part of the network connection, so having some non-upstream-router harder or hard state in your management systems i.e. DHCP database, can make troubleshooting and billing easier. It also encourages the model that ISPs give out subnets to all customers (unless there is a PD option for RAs that I'm not aware of), not end-node addresses. Regards, Mark. Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle per= sone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dall= a conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abb= iate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di dar= ne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione= , Grazie. This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged = information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, pri= nting or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended r= ecipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sen= der by return e-mail, Thanks. From ajsissinclair@yahoo.co.uk Tue Mar 17 07:02:16 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 372653A6AE0; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 07:02:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -26.629 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-26.629 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, HELO_EQ_DYNAMIC=1.144, HELO_EQ_TW=1.335, INVALID_MSGID=1.9, MSGID_SHORT=1.078, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 7MTl2d36PDgX; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 07:02:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 219-68-200-119.adsl.dynamic.giga.net.tw (219-68-200-119.adsl.dynamic.giga.net.tw [219.68.200.119]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E9A923A6A66; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 07:02:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 248.134.104.85 by smtp.190.51.234.242; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:55:27 -0300 Message-ID: <0581qip788MBN> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:02:27 -0500 From: "Gregorio Jefferson" To: "Gregorio Jefferson" Subject: Trim line or sport watch? You choose Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Hello Gregorio How about buying yourself a two Vacheron Constantin watches the same day? It's not impossible, mostly when you can get them for a couple hundred bucks http://www.ioectkme.cn We are offering wholesaler prices on all watches during the month of March. http://www.ioectkme.cn Our Vacheron Constantin watches have perfect weight and feel same as orginal. Sincerely, Mr Jefferson From kandyjames44@yahoo.co.uk Tue Mar 17 09:34:39 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 008883A6C11; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 09:34:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -55.806 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-55.806 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, INVALID_MSGID=1.9, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 NNKGtcwD1JwQ; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 09:34:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e177111014.adsl.alicedsl.de (e177111014.adsl.alicedsl.de [85.177.111.14]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 51BF93A6BFF; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 09:33:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 22.187.36.41 by smtp.85.177.111.14; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 11:26:30 -0600 Message-ID: <3600ak086114TMA> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:34:30 -0500 From: "Flossie Mcallister" To: "Pasquale Mays" Subject: Rep watches made easy Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Hello Suzanne Looking for a Omega? How about getting two, one for you and one for your spouse? http://www.iossqmue.cn With top notch customer service and super warranty, we stand behind our watches. http://www.iossqmue.cn Our Omega have Weights/feels and looks exactly same as original. Sincerely, Mr Kendrick From ouglas@agrotain.com Tue Mar 17 12:49:42 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3B393A6AC4 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:49:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -13.473 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.473 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.561, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02=0.383, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_NONE=0.1, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 lNjegTYpGz67 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:49:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alexanderbolton.com (unknown [190.177.186.9]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5280D3A6899 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:49:39 -0700 (PDT) To: Subject: Customer Receipt/Purchase Confirmation From: MensHealth.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090317194940.5280D3A6899@core3.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:49:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subscribe to Men's Health Today!



Subscribe to Men's Health Today!





To your health,


David Zinczenko
Editor-in-Chief
Subscribe to Men's Health Today!
Unsubscribe | Your Privacy Rights

¿ 2008 Rodale Inc., all rights reserved.
Customer Service Dept., 33 East Minor Street, Emmaus, PA 18098
From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Mar 17 20:47:43 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 665443A6873 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:47:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.007 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.007 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.412, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 cTj1TkskPihc for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:47:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 608AF3A6802 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:47:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LjmgH-000CcH-FB for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 03:43:01 +0000 Received: from [74.125.46.30] (helo=yw-out-2324.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LjmgC-000Cbt-Qi for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 03:42:58 +0000 Received: by yw-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 3so245639ywj.71 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:42:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=EZxoSO5dl6Ef1MwXSiwiI6LzzlnkhMsCLEvkBeZeSN0=; b=rbpT3lTmw4AVxNrsV03rMeylMe0IsClpYexJrMokrVX2lXzfTYM2ngwrpt03ie47e3 vOgfSWGJUcvlklmcmWd1g9NMLXbwqiYdewEyzY/bJPNxp5cJwCDBbWbjOf3EQ0ZF6YU8 WCR6VCHYX2uJFI/TCj2Qa4r5H72D+p1WN6/go= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=lQaAWpqgjzhUu3OmgwWVZ9f4jMFjVDMB/UjjGdWEGeXdNPT83TXdPq95oj09L8G8vk 7GeTkz2c1GKDDN1pChTFdl+kG4961FpkvjmafQ0Cgnjxteon1zx3/Bo4eTw3KREbszgZ duP/X6z6NGi50tIhR7lYCl3SCGWfSR12qLlp4= Received: by 10.142.177.13 with SMTP id z13mr44655wfe.196.1237347775676; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:42:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?130.216.38.124? (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 24sm821064wff.22.2009.03.17.20.42.53 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:42:54 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49C06DBC.5090504@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:42:52 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?UsOpbWkgRGVuaXMtQ291cm1vbnQ=?= CC: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-denis-v6ops-nat-addrsel-00.txt References: <20090218161504.A880C3A6A15@core3.amsl.com> <49BAF41A.70806@gmail.com> <200903161037.47562.remi.denis-courmont@nokia.com> In-Reply-To: <200903161037.47562.remi.denis-courmont@nokia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Cutting to the chase: > What I'm seeing on the systems that do _not_ do this (mostly Linux and = BSD),=20 > is that users are learning to disable IPv6 altogether. >=20 > Somehow I do not think that is what IETF wanted. No. But neither do we want to prevent use of v6 auto-tunnelled solutions when they work more or less as well as v4 NAT. So we should recommend a configurable switch for this (prefer auto-tunnel vs prefer NAT) rather than a solid preference. Brian On 2009-03-16 21:37, R=C3=A9mi Denis-Courmont wrote: > On Saturday 14 March 2009 02:02:34 ext Brian E Carpenter wrote: >> I am not sure about this statement in your draft: >>> Thus, the transitional (IPv6) address will be used instead of the >>> native (IPv4) address, even though that should have been avoided. >> As I recall, the intention was always that IPv6 should be preferred >> to IPv4, when both are available. The statement you quote earlier >> >>> [RFC3484] states that "the use of transitional addresses when nati= ve >>> addresses are available [should be avoided]". >> was in my memory intended to refer to IPv6 versus IPv6, and not to >> IPv6 versus IPv4. >> >> On that view, the current behaviour is not a mistake. The mistake may >> be elsewhere: a black hole in the transitional IPv6 connectivity. >=20 > One might argue that 6to4-6to4 and Teredo-Teredo is better than NAT'ed = IPv4.=20 > But going through one relay: 6to4-native, Teredo-native, or worse, two = relays:=20 > 6to4-Teredo, is always going to -for lack of a better word- "suck". >=20 >> You suggest: >>> Several operating system vendors appear to work around this issue = by >>> assigning a global scope to IPv4 address. Thus, rule 2 is no long= er >>> discriminating against the IPv4 address pair. >> True, but that is against the intention of discriminating in favour >> of IPv6. So while some vendors may have chosen this approach, it isn't= >> what we wanted. >=20 > What I'm seeing on the systems that do _not_ do this (mostly Linux and = BSD),=20 > is that users are learning to disable IPv6 altogether. >=20 > Somehow I do not think that is what IETF wanted. >=20 >> I don't see why we'd fix an operational problem of black holes >> by discriminating in favour of IPv4 NAT. That would just serve to >> reduce the incentive to fix the black holes. >=20 > Those black holes are an unavoidable problem with relays. By design, re= lays=20 > are going to suffer from bandwidth constraints, and be less reliable th= at=20 > either native IPv4 or native IPv6, since they depend on both of them. >=20 > The only advantage of using relayed IPv6 connectivity lies in not being= =20 > NAT'ed. There are applications that do suffer from NAT'ing. There it ma= kes=20 > sense to favor IPv6. As it happens, RFC3484 is typically _not_ used by = those=20 > apps. Those apps mostly cannot use getaddrinfo() - their protocols conv= ey list=20 > of addresses directly (look at ICE for instance). >=20 > Applications that do use RFC3484 -those that typically use DNS- seldom = care=20 > about being NAT'ed. But, sure, some do (e.g. active FTP). That's why I = was=20 > suggesting a new source address selection flag in section 5.2 of the dr= aft. >=20 >>> 6. IPv6 Address Translation >>> >>> The implications of IPv6 Address Translation and protocol translat= ion >>> are left beyond the scope of this document. However, it can only = be >>> recommended that RFC3484 be taken into account when designing such= >>> translation systems. >> Since ULAs are defined to have global scope, I think there will >> be no problem. >=20 > If ULA are chosen, then I agree there should be no _such_ problem. I wo= uldn't=20 > bet my hand that there would be no problems - at all - though ;) >=20 From alyvzcatd@ms22.hinet.net Tue Mar 17 20:53:04 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B9073A6873; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:53:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -86.129 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-86.129 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL=0.692, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 QIhYKF7+YpWk; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:53:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 58-27-221-106.wateen.net (58-27-221-106.wateen.net [58.27.221.106]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 084443A6802; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:52:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Trim line or sport watch? You choose Message-ID: From: "Arline Pettit" Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit To: "Hilario Rojas" Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:53:34 -0500 Hello Ronny Looking for a Longines watch that no one can tell from the original? You're in luck, because we have the best copies http://hansjoergflorentiaxl.blogspot.com/?id=6533ilgf Get two deeply discounted watches and take an extra 15% discount. http://hansjoergflorentiaxl.blogspot.com/?id=6533ilgf Our Longines have all appropriate markings, wordings and engravings same as orginal. Sincerely, Mr Pool From dennyc@baleno.com.hk Tue Mar 17 23:44:57 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 135AD3A69BC; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:44:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -40.055 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-40.055 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=36.685, BAYES_80=2, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_DYNAMIC=1.144, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_RECV_SPAM_DOMN0b=1.666, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 OjeuRs8bg7oB; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:44:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 218-167-12-181.dynamic.hinet.net (218-167-12-181.dynamic.hinet.net [218.167.12.181]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id EAE463A67FC; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:44:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <147nn6504tools-team@ietf.org> From: "Alma Couch" To: "Mollie Rushing" X-Originating-IP: 242.174.100.104 by 238.237.36.161; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 06:38:27 -0100 Subject: 15% off on two watches Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 02:45:27 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Hello Melanie I had never seen such beautiful and greatly-performing watches like the ones I found online at http://tropinemonocledrq.blogspot.com/?id=65vdpb2j Take an extra 15% off your purchase during month of March. http://tropinemonocledrq.blogspot.com/?id=65vdpb2j Our Bvlgari have Weights/feels and looks exactly same as original. Sincerely, Mr Odonnell From egg4159@dalsym.com Wed Mar 18 11:46:48 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 513E728C10B; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:46:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -61.239 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-61.239 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_95=3, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 qiNAwnbAVMhB; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:46:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from f053010062.adsl.alicedsl.de (f053010062.adsl.alicedsl.de [78.53.10.62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E95B73A680B; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:46:41 -0700 (PDT) From: "Lillie Gregory" To: "Marcelo Ervin" Subject: 15% off on two watches Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:47:24 -0500 Message-ID: <111Lvds.w3122E741aaa-archive@lists.ietf.org> Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Hello Rosemary Looking for a Cartier watch that no one can tell from the original? You're in luck, because we have the best copies http://www.vmeoiu.cn With top notch customer service and super warranty, we stand behind our watches. http://www.vmeoiu.cn Our Cartier have Weights/feels and looks exactly same as original. Sincerely, Mr Cruz From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 18 17:00:47 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41F473A6922 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:00:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.472 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.472 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.977, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 JKgc51B4PhD5 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:00:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22C9B3A68E6 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:00:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lk5bY-000HWv-5B for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 23:55:24 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.72] (helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lk5bS-000HWc-VU for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 23:55:21 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,386,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="144148196" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 18 Mar 2009 23:55:16 +0000 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2INtGqD003131 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:55:16 -0700 Received: from dhcp-128-107-109-160.cisco.com (dhcp-128-107-109-160.cisco.com [128.107.109.160]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2INtGnr016869 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 23:55:16 GMT Message-Id: <9D55B7AB-196E-4D31-9C26-66FC7E8447FE@cisco.com> From: Fred Baker To: IPv6 Operations Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Agenda Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 16:55:15 -0700 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=692; t=1237420516; x=1238284516; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20 |Subject:=20Agenda |Sender:=20; bh=8YPLMHcEBkUSr9oDGbkW94lfdRQMC9WwNfGhdqgCOrY=; b=ZEeFV+deEumRbp1tW22gVIFuB1GtqLp2cpSHKczQgdOYjJJqnYDn6Lc/FS WZPawC+wErDvlIdRLS8uvnwkGWG1HHsz17X/RczIGxWJEjv2wvmdbrKIBEwC JuRgAWv42G; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: So I am finally posting the agenda for our meetings next week. I'll blame the delay on the late posting of drafts. Or something like that :-) http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/agenda/v6ops.html I need all of the presentations that people plan to use, whether in PDF or PPT format, by Sunday night so I can post them, please. We will run them from my laptop. Presenters, some of you have told me you only need ten minutes, and I'll be hoping you do that. I asked for two 2-hour sessions and got one 2.5 hour and one 1 hour session. There is at least one discussion that I expect to warrant some extra time, and what we have is about 20 minutes each. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 18 18:31:12 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F84E3A6B17 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:31:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.252 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.252 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.243, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 SCnwsTb4Sa0y for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:31:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B36E3A6866 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:31:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lk746-000L4R-Qc for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 01:28:58 +0000 Received: from [119.145.14.67] (helo=szxga04-in.huawei.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lk742-000L4A-9x for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 01:28:56 +0000 Received: from huawei.com (szxga04-in [172.24.2.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KGQ00DTOC45YA@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:28:53 +0800 (CST) Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.1.12]) by szxga04-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0KGQ0062IC45C4@szxga04-in.huawei.com> for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:28:53 +0800 (CST) Received: from J66104 ([10.111.12.219]) by szxml05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0KGQ0052EC44HU@szxml05-in.huawei.com> for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:28:53 +0800 (CST) Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 09:28:38 +0800 From: Sheng Jiang Subject: RE: Agenda In-reply-to: <9D55B7AB-196E-4D31-9C26-66FC7E8447FE@cisco.com> To: 'Fred Baker' , 'IPv6 Operations' Cc: 'Brian E Carpenter' Message-id: <001901c9a832$07c4d0e0$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Thread-index: AcmoKFoRixTTL9nuTWiuFkpqxRnWuAACOMWA Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Hi, Fred, Could you add Brian Carpenter as co-author and presenter for the following agenda item? Due to a known bug of auto-submission tool, Brian's name does not recognized. An Incremental Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) for IPv6 Transition Sheng Jiang, Dayong Guo, Brian Carpenter Many thanks and best regards, Sheng >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org >[mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker >Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 7:55 AM >To: IPv6 Operations >Subject: Agenda > >So I am finally posting the agenda for our meetings next week. >I'll blame the delay on the late posting of drafts. Or >something like that :-) > > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/agenda/v6ops.html > >I need all of the presentations that people plan to use, >whether in PDF or PPT format, by Sunday night so I can post >them, please. We will run them from my laptop. > >Presenters, some of you have told me you only need ten >minutes, and I'll be hoping you do that. I asked for two >2-hour sessions and got one 2.5 hour and one 1 hour session. >There is at least one discussion that I expect to warrant some >extra time, and what we have is about 20 minutes each. > From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 18 21:43:43 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE2513A67DF for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 21:43:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.375 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.375 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.880, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 W8TYMwSZRVZ5 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 21:43:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CC483A6774 for ; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 21:43:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LkA2b-0002Rv-1m for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 04:39:37 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.117] (helo=sj-iport-6.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LkA2W-0002Rd-8V for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 04:39:34 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,387,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="270041001" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Mar 2009 04:39:27 +0000 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2J4dR62004683; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 21:39:27 -0700 Received: from [10.2.6.85] (sjc-vpn3-780.cisco.com [10.21.67.12]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2J4dRnb023862; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 04:39:27 GMT Cc: "'IPv6 Operations'" , "'Brian E Carpenter'" Message-Id: From: Fred Baker To: Sheng Jiang In-Reply-To: <001901c9a832$07c4d0e0$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: Agenda Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 21:39:26 -0700 References: <001901c9a832$07c4d0e0$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1363; t=1237437567; x=1238301567; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20Agenda |Sender:=20; bh=nv1C1puqO6CECbQ+M5Wb2O48+JdTYWSb1yxClexvyZY=; b=btVBG61NBEAMLRYk1W8QPzY53hAl4RFD9PWhDE6DOSIKF24N1shhAeAMPj 5No65RusW0bwClryml4oZahomkn8HxghdoLsIxd2FQmmjISY7emb8ZUnEvRx bBNN5iSxm9; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: sure, np On Mar 18, 2009, at 6:28 PM, Sheng Jiang wrote: > Hi, Fred, > > Could you add Brian Carpenter as co-author and presenter for the > following agenda > item? Due to a known bug of auto-submission tool, Brian's name does > not recognized. > > An Incremental Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) for IPv6 Transition > Sheng Jiang, Dayong Guo, Brian Carpenter > > Many thanks and best regards, > > Sheng > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org >> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker >> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 7:55 AM >> To: IPv6 Operations >> Subject: Agenda >> >> So I am finally posting the agenda for our meetings next week. >> I'll blame the delay on the late posting of drafts. Or >> something like that :-) >> >> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/agenda/v6ops.html >> >> I need all of the presentations that people plan to use, >> whether in PDF or PPT format, by Sunday night so I can post >> them, please. We will run them from my laptop. >> >> Presenters, some of you have told me you only need ten >> minutes, and I'll be hoping you do that. I asked for two >> 2-hour sessions and got one 2.5 hour and one 1 hour session. >> There is at least one discussion that I expect to warrant some >> extra time, and what we have is about 20 minutes each. >> > From grunin@utahrealtors.com Thu Mar 19 12:33:01 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20C663A6A2B; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:33:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -57.31 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-57.31 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_60=1, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP=1.398, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 NnD8gsKW9JHy; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:32:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dslb-092-075-046-169.pools.arcor-ip.net (dslb-092-075-046-169.pools.arcor-ip.net [92.75.46.169]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id F0CE128C10B; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:32:37 -0700 (PDT) To: "Blair Queen" Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:33:29 -0500 Subject: One of a kind Chopard reps Message-ID: From: "Anna Gallagher" Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Hello Blair Looking for a Omega? How about getting two, one for you and one for your spouse? http://www.yawagiwil.cn Take an extra 15% off your purchase during month of March. http://www.yawagiwil.cn Our Omega have all appropriate markings, wordings and engravings same as orginal. Sincerely, Mr Queen From martin.bugmann@akb.ch Thu Mar 19 20:14:57 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0253F3A6C09 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:14:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -27.427 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-27.427 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP=1.398, HELO_EQ_AT=0.424, HELO_EQ_CPE=0.5, HOST_EQ_AT=0.745, HOST_EQ_CPE=0.979, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_UNI=0.591, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 BMs4yx2cupnq for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:14:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cpe90-146-48-236.liwest.at (cpe90-146-48-236.liwest.at [90.146.48.236]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E62313A6407 for ; Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:14:45 -0700 (PDT) To: v6ops-archive@ietf.org Subject: The confirmatory letter was sent From: "Weston Potts" X-Priority: 1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset = "iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <20090320031446.E62313A6407@core3.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:14:45 -0700 (PDT)
18/18/09

CONVINCE HER TO EXPERIMENT MORE

If your wife or girlfriend just lies there during love and you want more action, first ask yourself: Is she loglike outside of the bedroom? Because if she doesn't exercise, stretch, dance—anything—it's going to take some effort to bring out her inner bunny.

Before she can enjoy your body, she has to start enjoying her own. Invite her to go hiking, or buy her a gift certificate for yoga classes. Anything that will get her blood flowing is likely to liven up her sexual M.O. by raising her confidence in her body.

If she's already active yet carnally comatose, try to reconnect with her in a sensual way. Suggest taking a long, soapy shower together or trading full-body rubdowns in bed, and lavish her body with attention. Nothing softens a woman up or turns her on like a little pampering.

Want to mix it up more? Even if she's not into role-playing or video cameras, there are plenty of prudish props that can mimic kink. Grab a spatula and offer to treat her like an omelet. Use a spray bottle to spritz her down.

Countless household items have kinky potential. The trick is to plant the object within reach (or coax her into finding new uses for the kitchen, laundry room, toolshed ...) and make your decision to bring it into play appear totally spontaneous.

xo,
Nicole Beland
The Men's Health Girl Next Door

   
COUPLES
Handle with Care


Avoid these relationship mistakes for more
DECODE HER
The Female Coregasm
Yes, it's true: Women can have great ending while working out
Demystify the coregasm

THE ABS DIET ONLINE
Flat, firm abs made easy
• Workouts designed to fit your schedule, your body, your goals
• Customizable meal plans and no-hassle shopping lists
• Killer tracking tools to chart your progress
• Endless food options (stuff you want to eat)
• Total flexibility: swap, delete or add foods/exercises to your program
Start now!
Click Here!


YOUR PRIVACY RIGHTS  |  CONTACT US  |  UNSUBSCRIBE

COPYRIGHT RODALE, INC. 2009
33 East Minor Street, Emmaus, PA 18098, Attn: Customer Service
From sthcojuna@cosat.com Fri Mar 20 06:02:04 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFE4D3A6C73; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 06:02:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -19.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-19.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.755, BAYES_99=3.5, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 PRkZIGmuVaUm; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 06:02:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cpc3-rdng2-0-0-cust220.winn.cable.ntl.com (cpc3-rdng2-0-0-cust220.winn.cable.ntl.com [82.21.84.221]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 04AFD3A6C6B; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 06:02:00 -0700 (PDT) To: "Wilford Taylor" Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:02:46 -0500 Subject: 15% off on two watches Message-ID: From: "Nickolas Zimmerman" Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Hello Rod Looking for a Longines? How about getting two, one for you and one for your spouse? http://www.fowidudiy.cn With top notch customer service and super warranty, we stand behind our watches. http://www.fowidudiy.cn Our Longines have Weights/feels and looks exactly same as original. Sincerely, Mr Mcpherson From flavialeao@unimedbh.com.br Fri Mar 20 07:01:37 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC1463A6838; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 07:01:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.437 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, FRT_ROLEX=3.878, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_BR=0.955, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, HELO_EQ_TELESP=1.245, HOST_EQ_BR=1.295, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_NJABL_PROXY=1.643, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_RECV_SPAM_DOMN02=1.666, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 inCW5IxTXWCR; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 07:01:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 200-232-242-104.dsl.telesp.net.br (200-232-242-104.dsl.telesp.net.br [200.232.242.104]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id F3EF33A691C; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 07:01:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3900swy055tools-team@ietf.org> From: "Gavin Kern" To: "Neva Bowden" X-Originating-IP: 182.228.124.80 by 95.59.74.48; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:55:03 -0500 Subject: You and a Ro lex watch Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 10:02:03 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Hello Katie I had never seen such beautiful and greatly-performing watches like the ones I found online at http://www.fevocucuk.cn Take an extra 15% off your purchase during month of March. http://www.fevocucuk.cn Our Vacheron Constantin have Weights/feels and looks exactly same as original. Sincerely, Mr Ryan From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 20 07:23:44 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 266093A688B for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 07:23:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.941 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.941 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.046, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 iBSJhwr3jhmM for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 07:23:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 000D93A6838 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 07:23:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LkfYJ-000NUT-Uy for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:18:27 +0000 Received: from [192.100.105.134] (helo=mgw-mx09.nokia.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LkfY9-000NSs-EO for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:18:24 +0000 Received: from esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh106.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.213]) by mgw-mx09.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.6/Switch-3.2.6) with ESMTP id n2KEHUZr032360; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:18:08 -0500 Received: from vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.160.244.30]) by esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:17:55 +0200 Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.8]) by vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:17:47 +0200 Received: from nok-am1mhub-06.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.10) by NOK-AM1MHUB-04.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.8) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.340.0; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:17:46 +0100 Received: from NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.86]) by nok-am1mhub-06.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.10]) with mapi; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:17:46 +0100 From: To: , CC: Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:17:10 +0100 Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Thread-Topic: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Thread-Index: AcmdcKeRcryZ/MspT8qEcavULU5jWgAA1IrwACOcU6AAAwEyYAAmvCPAAq6t04A= Message-ID: <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F2753475@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> References: <110c01c99e03$c46343a0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <021d01c99e10$888458d0$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: 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-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Mar 2009 14:17:47.0246 (UTC) FILETIME=[A4BE40E0:01C9A966] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Hi, Thank you for the revision. I read it trough and I have following comments/= questions/nits: - 5.3.1: I guess SLAAC can also be used to aquire global IPv6 address for W= AN interface as said in 5.? - After reading the document I was not completely certain what level of DHC= Pv6 server functionality it is envisioned to be implemented by CPE. In 5.5.= it is said that CPE router can pass DNS server information to clients -> d= oes this mean CPE router should have at least Stateless DHCPv6 server in or= der to serve these queries? Or alternatively, is it ok for CPE router to ac= t as DHCPv6 relay and relay information requests to SP? Which way is prefer= red (MUST/SHOULD/MAY..)? I understand stateful DHCPv6 server functionality = is a question mark still. - You mention DNS64 in the document (8.6), do you envision CPE router could= implement NAT64 as wall? I think NAT64 could be left out or just mentioned= shortly - without going into details (so that completing this work would n= ot pend on NAT64 work's progress), but how do you see? - Last paragraph of 7 says "A route SHOULD be added..." and later:"... null= route MAY be automatic.". Should it say "A _null_ route SHOULD be added"? = I was unclear which route should be added to prevent routing loops, or jus= t a route. - 7.1. In 3GPP case the /64 prefix is not only for LAN interfaces, but also= for the WAN interface. Thus I'd rather say:".. across multiple LAN interfa= ces, possibly including WAN interfase as well, and the CPE router..". Then = "..any two LAN interfaces.." -> "..any two interfaces..". And still later "= ..if any two disparate LAN interfaces..." -> "..if any two disparate interf= aces..". - 7.1. Says "..has more than multiple prefixes available.." should it just = be:"..has multiple prefixes available.."? - 10. introduces WAN_IP_ACQUIRE_TIMEOUT constant. I would like to see comme= nt here that particular L2 specifications may override this constant with s= ome other value, as this is L2 dependent. In some L2 mechanisms one can see= right at the L2 setup whether it supports native IPv4/IPv6 and it can be d= etected quickly if the address family is available natively or not. Also in= some cases where L2 is setup on-demand, there is no time to wait for this = long timeouts (user may be waiting) but its better proceed quickly with tun= nel setups.=20 Best regards, Teemu =20 >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org=20 >[mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Hemant=20 >Singh (shemant) >Sent: 06 March, 2009 14:27 >To: IPv6 Operations >Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); Wes Beebee (wbeebee) >Subject: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft > >http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-rout >er-04.txt > >Sorry, we forgot that the -00 submission for I-D's was March=20 >4th, 2009 and thus did not release a=20 >draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-00.txt. As folks may know=20 >this draft is a work item of the v6ops WG as of the=20 >Minneapolis IETF during November 2008. Soon as IETF opens up=20 >-00 submission again during the March IETF, we will submit the=20 >-00 version of this draft. We didn't want to wait any longer=20 >to release this new version so that folks could get a few=20 >weeks of review before IETF 74. > >Gross items taken care of in this version. > >1. Added DS-Lite section to the draft. >2. Added text to cater to Brian Carpenter's comment that the=20 >CPE Rtr should not hard code it's data forwarding table to=20 >existing 200::/3 prefix. >3. Added more explanatory text to strong host model portion of=20 >the document to address question raised by Dave Thaler at the=20 >mike during IETF 73. >4. Augmented the Abstract to cater to comments from the mike=20 >during IETF >73 as to how other task forces may use this document. >5. Added ND Proxy section catering to comments from Teemu. > >Hemant & Wes > >= From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 20 08:39:15 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AC1C3A6BF0 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 08:39:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.608 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.608 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.113, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 LR7i06eNma49 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 08:39:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A81553A6B46 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 08:39:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lkgm0-0003gZ-UC for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:36:40 +0000 Received: from [64.102.122.149] (helo=rtp-iport-2.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lkgln-0003fd-Tm for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:36:30 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,395,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="40010309" Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Mar 2009 15:36:26 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2KFaQjN023775; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:36:26 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2KFaQGR003968; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:36:26 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.40]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:36:26 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:36:25 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F2753475@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Thread-Index: AcmdcKeRcryZ/MspT8qEcavULU5jWgAA1IrwACOcU6AAAwEyYAAmvCPAAq6t04AAAT1xwA== References: <110c01c99e03$c46343a0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <021d01c99e10$888458d0$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F2753475@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" To: , Cc: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Mar 2009 15:36:26.0858 (UTC) FILETIME=[A1D9E4A0:01C9A971] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=5319; t=1237563386; x=1238427386; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20Posted=20a=20new=20copy=20of=20CPE=20Rt r=20draft |Sender:=20 |To:=20,=20; bh=cI41LX2xDw2yviVIWEdkN5UTypxYoVhHE7eb9eRt+Uk=; b=elbTQdk/7c2ZK9SSkGAEtY7qHBXHZoYRK6jTxu5b72OL0oJWr6sruGR8on 4/Of4SMRyzVmh0+4fFs3xL83EMF+UTSfvS+1FDi0dv8zC1qtCimR8D+gKmSc oDi01Rny9A; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=shemant@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Teemu, Thanks for the review. Please see inline below between and . -----Original Message----- From: teemu.savolainen@nokia.com [mailto:teemu.savolainen@nokia.com]=20 Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 10:17 AM To: Hemant Singh (shemant); v6ops@ops.ietf.org Cc: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Hi, Thank you for the revision. I read it trough and I have following comments/questions/nits: - 5.3.1: I guess SLAAC can also be used to aquire global IPv6 address for WAN interface as said in 5.? Yes. We will fix the statement sentence in 5.3.1 for SLAAC. - After reading the document I was not completely certain what level of DHCPv6 server functionality it is envisioned to be implemented by CPE. In 5.5. it is said that CPE router can pass DNS server information to clients -> does this mean CPE router should have at least Stateless DHCPv6 server in order to serve these queries? Or alternatively, is it ok for CPE router to act as DHCPv6 relay and relay information requests to SP? Which way is preferred (MUST/SHOULD/MAY..)? I understand stateful DHCPv6 server functionality is a question mark still. Yes, as you say, at least a stateless DHCPv6 server will be needed to pass parameters like DNS IP to the clients in the home. However, soon as CPE Rtr supports cascading CPE Rtrs or the Rtr is sub-delegating more PDs than what the SP gave to the Rtr, then the CPE Rtr has got to support stateful DHCPv6 server - this is obvious. A relay agent won't suffice if multiple prefixes are delegated to LAN clients. - You mention DNS64 in the document (8.6), do you envision CPE router could implement NAT64 as wall? I think NAT64 could be left out or just mentioned shortly - without going into details (so that completing this work would not pend on NAT64 work's progress), but how do you see? We have deliberately stayed away from NAT64 so far. However, if a CGN document says the CGN cannot support NA64 and the CPE Rtr must do so, we are open to adding NAT64 to the CPE Rtr. - Last paragraph of 7 says "A route SHOULD be added..." and later:"... null route MAY be automatic.". Should it say "A _null_ route SHOULD be added"? I was unclear which route should be added to prevent routing loops, or just a route. It's the same null route. We will make the text better as follows: [Old text] A route SHOULD be added to the routing table (to prevent routing loops) that is lower priority than any route except the default route. The choice to drop the packet or send an ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable to the source address of the packet is implementation-dependent. The installation of the null route MAY be automatic.=20 [New text] A null route SHOULD be added to the routing table (to prevent routing loops) that is lower priority than any route except the default route. The choice to drop the packet or send an ICMPv6 Destination Unreachable to the source address of the packet is implementation-dependent. The installation of this null route MAY be automatic. - 7.1. In 3GPP case the /64 prefix is not only for LAN interfaces, but also for the WAN interface. Thus I'd rather say:".. across multiple LAN interfaces, possibly including WAN interfase as well, and the CPE router..". Then "..any two LAN interfaces.." -> "..any two interfaces..". And still later "..if any two disparate LAN interfaces..." -> "..if any two disparate interfaces..". Disagree. You are suggesting one implement ND Proxy between the WAN and LAN interfaces. For the CPE Rtr, the WAN and LAN interface(s) are two different routing domains - if one can perform routing between domains, why support ND Proxy? We are also making the last sentence better in section 7.1 as follows: [Old text] However, if the CPE Router has more than multiple prefixes available for use on LAN interfaces(s), and still any two interfaces on the LAN have disparate MAC layer, the CPE Router MUST NOT support ND Proxy. [New text] However, if the CPE Router has multiple prefixes available for use on LAN interfaces(s), and still any two interfaces on the LAN have disparate MAC layer, the CPE Router MUST NOT use ND Proxy between the two interfaces. - 7.1. Says "..has more than multiple prefixes available.." should it just be:"..has multiple prefixes available.."? Sure, we will fix the English. - 10. introduces WAN_IP_ACQUIRE_TIMEOUT constant. I would like to see comment here that particular L2 specifications may override this constant with some other value, as this is L2 dependent. In some L2 mechanisms one can see right at the L2 setup whether it supports native IPv4/IPv6 and it can be detected quickly if the address family is available natively or not. Also in some cases where L2 is setup on-demand, there is no time to wait for this long timeouts (user may be waiting) but its better proceed quickly with tunnel setups.=20 Sure thing. A new line will be added to the definition as follows: The default value of the WAN_IP_ACQUIRE_TIMEOUT can be overridden by link-type specific documents. Best Regards and thanks much. Hemant & Wes. Best regards, Teemu =20 From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 20 10:17:03 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC72B3A6A28 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 10:17:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.886 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.886 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.991, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 MClyKWRxrrCd for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 10:17:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFE913A696B for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 10:17:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LkiIi-000AeT-HF for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 17:14:32 +0000 Received: from [192.100.122.233] (helo=mgw-mx06.nokia.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LkiIb-000Ada-Nu for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 17:14:27 +0000 Received: from vaebh105.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh105.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.31]) by mgw-mx06.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.6/Switch-3.2.6) with ESMTP id n2KHE0wD024718; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:14:18 +0200 Received: from vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.160.244.30]) by vaebh105.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:14:16 +0200 Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.8]) by vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:14:08 +0200 Received: from nok-am1mhub-06.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.10) by NOK-AM1MHUB-04.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.8) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.340.0; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:14:07 +0100 Received: from NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.86]) by nok-am1mhub-06.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.10]) with mapi; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:14:07 +0100 From: To: , CC: Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:13:30 +0100 Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Thread-Topic: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Thread-Index: AcmdcKeRcryZ/MspT8qEcavULU5jWgAA1IrwACOcU6AAAwEyYAAmvCPAAq6t04AAAT1xwAAEpsWg Message-ID: <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F27535CF@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> References: <110c01c99e03$c46343a0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <021d01c99e10$888458d0$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F2753475@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> In-Reply-To: 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-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Mar 2009 17:14:08.0189 (UTC) FILETIME=[477A06D0:01C9A97F] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Thanks for quick reply, I was ok with other things than this one: >- 7.1. In 3GPP case the /64 prefix is not only for LAN=20 >interfaces, but also for the WAN interface. Thus I'd rather=20 >say:".. across multiple LAN interfaces, possibly including WAN=20 >interfase as well, and the CPE router..". Then "..any two LAN=20 >interfaces.." -> "..any two interfaces..". And still later=20 >"..if any two disparate LAN interfaces..." -> "..if any two=20 >disparate interfaces..". > > >Disagree. You are suggesting one implement ND Proxy between=20 >the WAN and LAN interfaces. For the CPE Rtr, the WAN and LAN=20 >interface(s) are two different routing domains - if one can=20 >perform routing between domains, why support ND Proxy? We are=20 >also making the last sentence better in section 7.1 as follows: Yes. That is what has to be done in the link types we have to support. I do= n't see any other way when there is just single /64 received from point-to-= point WAN interface (in RA) which has to be enough for numbering the "CPE" = itself and all the devices in Ethernet LAN behind. Please let me know if th= ere is a better way. Only alternative I see is to have NAT66 in CPE similar to IPv4 NAT we alrea= dy have to share the single IPv4 address we get from operator. It would be very nice if there would be DHCPv6 PD available for "CPE" to as= k for prefixes for LAN, but unfortunately that is not always the case. I think we discussed this in IETF#73 corridor, but I have forgotten details= ... So maybe I should write a link-type specific document, which would desc= ribe this behaviour (maybe corner-case from IETF point of view, but the mos= t important use-case from my point of view)? After all, I guess it is bette= r to describe it rather than have it just as implementation-specific design= choice? Best regards, Teemu (I will not be able to make the v6ops meeting as I have to be in sha= ra BOF)= From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 20 10:38:27 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60B9A3A6BB5 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 10:38:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.247 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.247 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.352, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 rPmtEMN5mbM4 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 10:38:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 698513A6947 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 10:38:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LkieQ-000BrW-Mf for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 17:36:58 +0000 Received: from [64.102.122.149] (helo=rtp-iport-2.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LkieL-000Bqj-5x for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 17:36:55 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,396,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="40016956" Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Mar 2009 17:36:50 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2KHaoDs001291; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:36:50 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2KHaoGO014055; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 17:36:50 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.118]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:36:50 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:36:48 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F27535CF@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Thread-Index: AcmdcKeRcryZ/MspT8qEcavULU5jWgAA1IrwACOcU6AAAwEyYAAmvCPAAq6t04AAAT1xwAAEpsWgAAGpEVA= References: <110c01c99e03$c46343a0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <021d01c99e10$888458d0$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F2753475@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F27535CF@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> From: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" To: , "Hemant Singh (shemant)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Mar 2009 17:36:50.0952 (UTC) FILETIME=[73BF2880:01C9A982] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2301; t=1237570610; x=1238434610; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=wbeebee@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Wes=20Beebee=20(wbeebee)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20Posted=20a=20new=20copy=20of=20CPE=20Rt r=20draft |Sender:=20 |To:=20,=20=22Hemant=20Singh=20 (shemant)=22=20,=0A=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= 20; bh=m/VpjQbW2BfReZAvqmJShnEfEDnhZoqkPp6T4KiO2CU=; b=LqjPNbQND5JnQcRqf1d3C/ENGeYMIMcdKJuAPSLg48IRCTYujQS+oUiE7n RTEwgEDK3I2D/NwD1UplbP1ArY79Q//YkRz3amLSis7+hATaarNS/jOM/2DY tSpDjvi5fX; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=wbeebee@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Hmmm... =20 I wonder, would ULA's on the LAN side suffice? Or is this a zero-LAN model? - Wes -----Original Message----- From: teemu.savolainen@nokia.com [mailto:teemu.savolainen@nokia.com]=20 Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:14 PM To: Hemant Singh (shemant); v6ops@ops.ietf.org Cc: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Thanks for quick reply, I was ok with other things than this one: >- 7.1. In 3GPP case the /64 prefix is not only for LAN interfaces, but=20 >also for the WAN interface. Thus I'd rather say:".. across multiple LAN >interfaces, possibly including WAN interfase as well, and the CPE=20 >router..". Then "..any two LAN interfaces.." -> "..any two=20 >interfaces..". And still later "..if any two disparate LAN=20 >interfaces..." -> "..if any two disparate interfaces..". > > >Disagree. You are suggesting one implement ND Proxy between the WAN and >LAN interfaces. For the CPE Rtr, the WAN and LAN >interface(s) are two different routing domains - if one can perform=20 >routing between domains, why support ND Proxy? We are also making the=20 >last sentence better in section 7.1 as follows: Yes. That is what has to be done in the link types we have to support. I don't see any other way when there is just single /64 received from point-to-point WAN interface (in RA) which has to be enough for numbering the "CPE" itself and all the devices in Ethernet LAN behind. Please let me know if there is a better way. Only alternative I see is to have NAT66 in CPE similar to IPv4 NAT we already have to share the single IPv4 address we get from operator. It would be very nice if there would be DHCPv6 PD available for "CPE" to ask for prefixes for LAN, but unfortunately that is not always the case. I think we discussed this in IETF#73 corridor, but I have forgotten details... So maybe I should write a link-type specific document, which would describe this behaviour (maybe corner-case from IETF point of view, but the most important use-case from my point of view)? After all, I guess it is better to describe it rather than have it just as implementation-specific design choice? Best regards, Teemu (I will not be able to make the v6ops meeting as I have to be in shara BOF) From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 20 10:38:45 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 625BD3A6947 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 10:38:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.285 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.285 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.390, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 68HkgAr3j1lf for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 10:38:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62F683A6846 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 10:38:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LkigT-000BzD-DH for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 17:39:05 +0000 Received: from [64.102.122.149] (helo=rtp-iport-2.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LkigL-000ByP-QZ for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 17:39:02 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,396,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="40017234" Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Mar 2009 17:38:56 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2KHcuMK018813; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:38:56 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2KHcuRY015278; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 17:38:56 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.40]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:38:56 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:38:55 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F27535CF@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Thread-Index: AcmdcKeRcryZ/MspT8qEcavULU5jWgAA1IrwACOcU6AAAwEyYAAmvCPAAq6t04AAAT1xwAAEpsWgAAGa9lA= References: <110c01c99e03$c46343a0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <021d01c99e10$888458d0$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F2753475@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F27535CF@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" To: , Cc: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Mar 2009 17:38:56.0614 (UTC) FILETIME=[BEA5A860:01C9A982] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2876; t=1237570736; x=1238434736; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20Posted=20a=20new=20copy=20of=20CPE=20Rt r=20draft |Sender:=20 |To:=20,=20; bh=o5j5iHI/XInIoTIa51MKlcMGnYOkFua9dTdu4YOEQs4=; b=o2sgE/ttDGNY5ryYnQldEthK6Ev4cR8kvIEamWUtib9Uoz4yAr3AcwuzGd WwyMYKYmPABLZAoypt4ZmXHQMWIMT4XHaGQPg8BwlBR71piORFlc2aCu8uar 8evBukTN54; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=shemant@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Teemu, If your SP does not dole out a PD to the CPE Rtr and as you say, your common case is just one /64 doled out to the WAN interface with PPP. Ok, so if your LAN interface(s) are assigned addresses using SLAAC, since SLAAC needs a /64, how can you possibly use the WAN's /64 to assign addresses to the LAN interface(s)? It's not possible. Yes, you could run a DHCPv6 server in the device and then sub-delegate the /64. Hopefully such a DHCPv6 server sub-delegation is legal in IPv6 standards... =20 Alternatively, you can use ULA for the LAN and use the CPE Rtr as a router between WAN and LAN and not have anything to do with ND Proxy. Hemant -----Original Message----- From: teemu.savolainen@nokia.com [mailto:teemu.savolainen@nokia.com]=20 Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:14 PM To: Hemant Singh (shemant); v6ops@ops.ietf.org Cc: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Thanks for quick reply, I was ok with other things than this one: >- 7.1. In 3GPP case the /64 prefix is not only for LAN=20 >interfaces, but also for the WAN interface. Thus I'd rather=20 >say:".. across multiple LAN interfaces, possibly including WAN=20 >interfase as well, and the CPE router..". Then "..any two LAN=20 >interfaces.." -> "..any two interfaces..". And still later=20 >"..if any two disparate LAN interfaces..." -> "..if any two=20 >disparate interfaces..". > > >Disagree. You are suggesting one implement ND Proxy between=20 >the WAN and LAN interfaces. For the CPE Rtr, the WAN and LAN=20 >interface(s) are two different routing domains - if one can=20 >perform routing between domains, why support ND Proxy? We are=20 >also making the last sentence better in section 7.1 as follows: Yes. That is what has to be done in the link types we have to support. I don't see any other way when there is just single /64 received from point-to-point WAN interface (in RA) which has to be enough for numbering the "CPE" itself and all the devices in Ethernet LAN behind. Please let me know if there is a better way. Only alternative I see is to have NAT66 in CPE similar to IPv4 NAT we already have to share the single IPv4 address we get from operator. It would be very nice if there would be DHCPv6 PD available for "CPE" to ask for prefixes for LAN, but unfortunately that is not always the case. I think we discussed this in IETF#73 corridor, but I have forgotten details... So maybe I should write a link-type specific document, which would describe this behaviour (maybe corner-case from IETF point of view, but the most important use-case from my point of view)? After all, I guess it is better to describe it rather than have it just as implementation-specific design choice? Best regards, Teemu (I will not be able to make the v6ops meeting as I have to be in shara BOF) From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 20 10:56:56 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B31C83A6C10 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 10:56:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.837 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.837 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.942, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 GIUTaHmkZCCI for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 10:56:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0CFE3A6B15 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 10:56:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lkix7-000DfK-Mb for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 17:56:17 +0000 Received: from [192.100.105.134] (helo=mgw-mx09.nokia.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lkix2-000DeM-Gs for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 17:56:15 +0000 Received: from vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh106.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.32]) by mgw-mx09.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.6/Switch-3.2.6) with ESMTP id n2KHt4JW006302; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 12:56:09 -0500 Received: from vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.160.244.30]) by vaebh106.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:55:34 +0200 Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.6]) by vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:55:30 +0200 Received: from NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.86]) by nok-am1mhub-02.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.6]) with mapi; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:55:29 +0100 From: To: , CC: Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:54:53 +0100 Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Thread-Topic: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Thread-Index: AcmdcKeRcryZ/MspT8qEcavULU5jWgAA1IrwACOcU6AAAwEyYAAmvCPAAq6t04AAAT1xwAAEpsWgAAGa9lAAADlukA== Message-ID: <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F2753613@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> References: <110c01c99e03$c46343a0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <021d01c99e10$888458d0$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F2753475@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F27535CF@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> In-Reply-To: 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-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Mar 2009 17:55:30.0001 (UTC) FILETIME=[0EC07C10:01C9A985] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Hemant, Well, the RFC4389 describes this functionality of sharing the prefix betwee= n WAN and LAN. I don't see how the ULAs could be used for global communication by devices = in LAN. Best regards, Teemu >-----Original Message----- >From: ext Hemant Singh (shemant) [mailto:shemant@cisco.com]=20 >Sent: 20 March, 2009 10:39 >To: Savolainen Teemu (Nokia-D-MSW/Tampere); v6ops@ops.ietf.org >Cc: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) >Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft > >Teemu, > >If your SP does not dole out a PD to the CPE Rtr and as you=20 >say, your common case is just one /64 doled out to the WAN=20 >interface with PPP. >Ok, so if your LAN interface(s) are assigned addresses using=20 >SLAAC, since SLAAC needs a /64, how can you possibly use the=20 >WAN's /64 to assign addresses to the LAN interface(s)? It's=20 >not possible. Yes, you could run a DHCPv6 server in the=20 >device and then sub-delegate the /64. >Hopefully such a DHCPv6 server sub-delegation is legal in IPv6 >standards... =20 > >Alternatively, you can use ULA for the LAN and use the CPE Rtr=20 >as a router between WAN and LAN and not have anything to do=20 >with ND Proxy. > >Hemant > >-----Original Message----- >From: teemu.savolainen@nokia.com [mailto:teemu.savolainen@nokia.com] >Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:14 PM >To: Hemant Singh (shemant); v6ops@ops.ietf.org >Cc: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) >Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft > >Thanks for quick reply, I was ok with other things than this one: > >>- 7.1. In 3GPP case the /64 prefix is not only for LAN=20 >interfaces, but=20 >>also for the WAN interface. Thus I'd rather say:".. across=20 >multiple LAN=20 >>interfaces, possibly including WAN interfase as well, and the CPE=20 >>router..". Then "..any two LAN interfaces.." -> "..any two=20 >>interfaces..". And still later "..if any two disparate LAN=20 >>interfaces..." -> "..if any two disparate interfaces..". >> >> >>Disagree. You are suggesting one implement ND Proxy between=20 >the WAN and=20 >>LAN interfaces. For the CPE Rtr, the WAN and LAN >>interface(s) are two different routing domains - if one can perform=20 >>routing between domains, why support ND Proxy? We are also=20 >making the=20 >>last sentence better in section 7.1 as follows: > >Yes. That is what has to be done in the link types we have to=20 >support. I don't see any other way when there is just single=20 >/64 received from point-to-point WAN interface (in RA) which=20 >has to be enough for numbering the "CPE" itself and all the=20 >devices in Ethernet LAN behind. >Please let me know if there is a better way. > >Only alternative I see is to have NAT66 in CPE similar to IPv4=20 >NAT we already have to share the single IPv4 address we get=20 >from operator. > >It would be very nice if there would be DHCPv6 PD available=20 >for "CPE" to ask for prefixes for LAN, but unfortunately that=20 >is not always the case. > >I think we discussed this in IETF#73 corridor, but I have=20 >forgotten details... So maybe I should write a link-type=20 >specific document, which would describe this behaviour (maybe=20 >corner-case from IETF point of view, but the most important=20 >use-case from my point of view)? After all, I guess it is=20 >better to describe it rather than have it just as=20 >implementation-specific design choice? > >Best regards, > > Teemu (I will not be able to make the v6ops meeting as=20 >I have to be in shara BOF) >= From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 20 11:05:53 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBF5828C0F0 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:05:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.846 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.846 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.951, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 dPmIiZv4H4zq for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:05:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C675E3A682D for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:05:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lkj6O-000Em0-Cj for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:05:52 +0000 Received: from [216.82.242.3] (helo=mail121.messagelabs.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lkj6J-000ElP-09 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:05:49 +0000 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: bs7652@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-8.tower-121.messagelabs.com!1237572344!26523445!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.0.0; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.53] Received: (qmail 11447 invoked from network); 20 Mar 2009 18:05:45 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.53) by server-8.tower-121.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 20 Mar 2009 18:05:45 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n2KI5hej031675; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:05:44 -0400 Received: from 01GAF5142010625.AD.BLS.COM (01GAF5142010625.ad.bls.com [139.76.131.31]) by mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with SMTP id n2KI5c3g031588; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:05:39 -0400 Received: from 01NC27689010625.AD.BLS.COM ([90.144.44.200]) by 01GAF5142010625.AD.BLS.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:05:38 -0400 Received: from 01NC27689010641.AD.BLS.COM ([90.144.44.103]) by 01NC27689010625.AD.BLS.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:05:38 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.3168 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:05:31 -0400 Message-ID: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0D87FF79@crexc41p> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft thread-index: AcmdcKeRcryZ/MspT8qEcavULU5jWgAA1IrwACOcU6AAAwEyYAAmvCPAAq6t04AAAT1xwAAEpsWgAAGa9lAAAImtQA== References: <110c01c99e03$c46343a0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <021d01c99e10$888458d0$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F2753475@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F27535CF@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> From: "Stark, Barbara" To: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" , , CC: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Mar 2009 18:05:38.0354 (UTC) FILETIME=[795BC920:01C9A986] Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Another alternative, might be for the router to allow the its owner to put it in a bridged mode, instead of router mode. The "CPE router" could still get its own IPv6 address from the WAN, as a host should. But all devices in the LAN would effectively just be hosts off the WAN, and there would be no real LAN. There would be no ULA either. The question is whether the design of the WAN would limit the number of hosts that could be given addresses across that one interface. If that were the case, then this wouldn't work, and the CPE router would be forced to do a NAT66. In many ways, this case is very similar to that of the cascaded router that isn't given a prefix. I don't think this is a corner case. Barbara -----Original Message----- From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hemant Singh (shemant) Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:39 PM To: teemu.savolainen@nokia.com; v6ops@ops.ietf.org Cc: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Teemu, If your SP does not dole out a PD to the CPE Rtr and as you say, your common case is just one /64 doled out to the WAN interface with PPP. Ok, so if your LAN interface(s) are assigned addresses using SLAAC, since SLAAC needs a /64, how can you possibly use the WAN's /64 to assign addresses to the LAN interface(s)? It's not possible. Yes, you could run a DHCPv6 server in the device and then sub-delegate the /64. Hopefully such a DHCPv6 server sub-delegation is legal in IPv6 standards... =20 Alternatively, you can use ULA for the LAN and use the CPE Rtr as a router between WAN and LAN and not have anything to do with ND Proxy. Hemant -----Original Message----- From: teemu.savolainen@nokia.com [mailto:teemu.savolainen@nokia.com]=20 Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:14 PM To: Hemant Singh (shemant); v6ops@ops.ietf.org Cc: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Thanks for quick reply, I was ok with other things than this one: >- 7.1. In 3GPP case the /64 prefix is not only for LAN=20 >interfaces, but also for the WAN interface. Thus I'd rather=20 >say:".. across multiple LAN interfaces, possibly including WAN=20 >interfase as well, and the CPE router..". Then "..any two LAN=20 >interfaces.." -> "..any two interfaces..". And still later=20 >"..if any two disparate LAN interfaces..." -> "..if any two=20 >disparate interfaces..". > > >Disagree. You are suggesting one implement ND Proxy between=20 >the WAN and LAN interfaces. For the CPE Rtr, the WAN and LAN=20 >interface(s) are two different routing domains - if one can=20 >perform routing between domains, why support ND Proxy? We are=20 >also making the last sentence better in section 7.1 as follows: Yes. That is what has to be done in the link types we have to support. I don't see any other way when there is just single /64 received from point-to-point WAN interface (in RA) which has to be enough for numbering the "CPE" itself and all the devices in Ethernet LAN behind. Please let me know if there is a better way. Only alternative I see is to have NAT66 in CPE similar to IPv4 NAT we already have to share the single IPv4 address we get from operator. It would be very nice if there would be DHCPv6 PD available for "CPE" to ask for prefixes for LAN, but unfortunately that is not always the case. I think we discussed this in IETF#73 corridor, but I have forgotten details... So maybe I should write a link-type specific document, which would describe this behaviour (maybe corner-case from IETF point of view, but the most important use-case from my point of view)? After all, I guess it is better to describe it rather than have it just as implementation-specific design choice? Best regards, Teemu (I will not be able to make the v6ops meeting as I have to be in shara BOF) ***** The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to = which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or = privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other = use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by = persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If = you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the = material from all computers. GA625 From mcnariina@acc.sunamerica.com Fri Mar 20 11:14:01 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48D723A6C01 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:14:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -32.45 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-32.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, HELO_EQ_BR=0.955, HOST_EQ_BR=1.295, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.561, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02=0.383, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 VowR3wUDRhVy for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:14:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 81-208-83-237.fastres.net (81-208-83-237.fastres.net [81.208.83.237]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CEBD43A68D5 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:13:59 -0700 (PDT) To: Subject: You've received an answer to your question From: MensHealth.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090320181359.CEBD43A68D5@core3.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:13:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subscribe to Men's Health Today!



Subscribe to Men's Health Today!





To your health,


David Zinczenko
Editor-in-Chief
Subscribe to Men's Health Today!
Unsubscribe | Your Privacy Rights

¿ 2008 Rodale Inc., all rights reserved.
Customer Service Dept., 33 East Minor Street, Emmaus, PA 18098
From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 20 11:18:51 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38FEB3A6A28 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:18:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.792 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.792 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.897, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 87+2Xu7DutdY for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:18:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5EA13A696A for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:18:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LkjHC-000GCe-VI for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:17:02 +0000 Received: from [192.100.122.230] (helo=mgw-mx03.nokia.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LkjH7-000GBh-9e for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:17:00 +0000 Received: from vaebh105.NOE.Nokia.com (vaebh105.europe.nokia.com [10.160.244.31]) by mgw-mx03.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.6/Switch-3.2.6) with ESMTP id n2KIG6FP031325; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:16:47 +0200 Received: from esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.183]) by vaebh105.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:16:10 +0200 Received: from vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.160.244.22]) by esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:16:10 +0200 Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.5]) by vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:16:04 +0200 Received: from nok-am1mhub-07.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.14) by NOK-am1MHUB-01.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.5) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.340.0; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:16:04 +0100 Received: from NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.86]) by nok-am1mhub-07.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.14]) with mapi; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:16:04 +0100 From: To: , , CC: Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:15:27 +0100 Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Thread-Topic: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Thread-Index: AcmdcKeRcryZ/MspT8qEcavULU5jWgAA1IrwACOcU6AAAwEyYAAmvCPAAq6t04AAAT1xwAAEpsWgAAGa9lAAAImtQAAAmw9A Message-ID: <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F275362B@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> References: <110c01c99e03$c46343a0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <021d01c99e10$888458d0$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F2753475@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F27535CF@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0D87FF79@crexc41p> In-Reply-To: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0D87FF79@crexc41p> 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-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Mar 2009 18:16:04.0950 (UTC) FILETIME=[EED6BF60:01C9A987] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Hi, In the case I look the network allocates unique /64 for the PPP link, and t= hereby allows 2^64-1 or so addresses configured from that prefix (network r= eserves one address for the router on the SP side of the point-to-point lin= k). Do we have terminology issue here? You could indeed say all hosts configure= IPv6 address from the prefix received via WAN interface, so from that poin= t of view all these hosts are logically connected to WAN, although in reali= ty they go trough the ND proxy device. It cannot be bridged, as the link types are different (PPP and Ethernet), b= ut proxied mode.=20 Best regards, Teemu >-----Original Message----- >From: ext Stark, Barbara [mailto:bs7652@att.com]=20 >Sent: 20 March, 2009 11:06 >To: Hemant Singh (shemant); Savolainen Teemu=20 >(Nokia-D-MSW/Tampere); v6ops@ops.ietf.org >Cc: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) >Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft > >Another alternative, might be for the router to allow the its=20 >owner to put it in a bridged mode, instead of router mode. The=20 >"CPE router" could still get its own IPv6 address from the=20 >WAN, as a host should. But all devices in the LAN would=20 >effectively just be hosts off the WAN, and there would be no=20 >real LAN. There would be no ULA either. The question is=20 >whether the design of the WAN would limit the number of hosts=20 >that could be given addresses across that one interface. If=20 >that were the case, then this wouldn't work, and the CPE=20 >router would be forced to do a NAT66. > >In many ways, this case is very similar to that of the=20 >cascaded router that isn't given a prefix. > >I don't think this is a corner case. >Barbara > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org=20 >[mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hemant Singh (shemant) >Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:39 PM >To: teemu.savolainen@nokia.com; v6ops@ops.ietf.org >Cc: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) >Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft > >Teemu, > >If your SP does not dole out a PD to the CPE Rtr and as you=20 >say, your common case is just one /64 doled out to the WAN=20 >interface with PPP. >Ok, so if your LAN interface(s) are assigned addresses using=20 >SLAAC, since SLAAC needs a /64, how can you possibly use the=20 >WAN's /64 to assign addresses to the LAN interface(s)? It's=20 >not possible. Yes, you could run a DHCPv6 server in the=20 >device and then sub-delegate the /64. >Hopefully such a DHCPv6 server sub-delegation is legal in IPv6 >standards... =20 > >Alternatively, you can use ULA for the LAN and use the CPE Rtr=20 >as a router between WAN and LAN and not have anything to do=20 >with ND Proxy. > >Hemant > >-----Original Message----- >From: teemu.savolainen@nokia.com [mailto:teemu.savolainen@nokia.com] >Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:14 PM >To: Hemant Singh (shemant); v6ops@ops.ietf.org >Cc: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) >Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft > >Thanks for quick reply, I was ok with other things than this one: > >>- 7.1. In 3GPP case the /64 prefix is not only for LAN=20 >interfaces, but=20 >>also for the WAN interface. Thus I'd rather say:".. across=20 >multiple LAN=20 >>interfaces, possibly including WAN interfase as well, and the CPE=20 >>router..". Then "..any two LAN interfaces.." -> "..any two=20 >>interfaces..". And still later "..if any two disparate LAN=20 >>interfaces..." -> "..if any two disparate interfaces..". >> >> >>Disagree. You are suggesting one implement ND Proxy between=20 >the WAN and=20 >>LAN interfaces. For the CPE Rtr, the WAN and LAN >>interface(s) are two different routing domains - if one can perform=20 >>routing between domains, why support ND Proxy? We are also=20 >making the=20 >>last sentence better in section 7.1 as follows: > >Yes. That is what has to be done in the link types we have to=20 >support. I don't see any other way when there is just single=20 >/64 received from point-to-point WAN interface (in RA) which=20 >has to be enough for numbering the "CPE" itself and all the=20 >devices in Ethernet LAN behind. >Please let me know if there is a better way. > >Only alternative I see is to have NAT66 in CPE similar to IPv4=20 >NAT we already have to share the single IPv4 address we get=20 >from operator. > >It would be very nice if there would be DHCPv6 PD available=20 >for "CPE" to ask for prefixes for LAN, but unfortunately that=20 >is not always the case. > >I think we discussed this in IETF#73 corridor, but I have=20 >forgotten details... So maybe I should write a link-type=20 >specific document, which would describe this behaviour (maybe=20 >corner-case from IETF point of view, but the most important=20 >use-case from my point of view)? After all, I guess it is=20 >better to describe it rather than have it just as=20 >implementation-specific design choice? > >Best regards, > > Teemu (I will not be able to make the v6ops meeting as=20 >I have to be in shara BOF) > > >***** > >The information transmitted is intended only for the person or=20 >entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential,=20 >proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review,=20 >retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of=20 >any action in reliance upon this information by persons or=20 >entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If=20 >you received this in error, please contact the sender and=20 >delete the material from all computers. GA625 > > >= From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 20 11:18:57 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB2EE3A6A28 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:18:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.894 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.894 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.999, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 W+JFertjmMNe for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:18:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE8C63A68D5 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:18:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LkjHu-000GGv-84 for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:17:46 +0000 Received: from [171.68.10.86] (helo=sj-iport-4.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LkjHi-000GFv-74 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:17:36 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,396,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="32053285" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Mar 2009 18:17:33 +0000 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2KIHXEa026982; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:17:33 -0700 Received: from dwingwxp01 (sjc-vpn5-1130.cisco.com [10.21.92.106]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2KIHX3q021503; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:17:33 GMT From: "Dan Wing" To: , , Cc: References: <110c01c99e03$c46343a0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <021d01c99e10$888458d0$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F2753475@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F27535CF@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:17:32 -0700 Message-ID: <019b01c9a988$2307a600$335a150a@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F27535CF@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> Thread-Index: AcmdcKeRcryZ/MspT8qEcavULU5jWgAA1IrwACOcU6AAAwEyYAAmvCPAAq6t04AAAT1xwAAEpsWgAAL4ejA= X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2505; t=1237573053; x=1238437053; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Dan=20Wing=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20Posted=20a=20new=20copy=20of=20CPE=20Rt r=20draft |Sender:=20; bh=guezhf60hztZVEypPg4aOuEeFZuPZ/ThIJqso4UXZ10=; b=Ku6agwmj4kGvCK0zJvLQY2rSkubxZlqNb8jB0Q0tb9BcK0nqvRTa4ngV0g Lh3aimTOW8gbn7yNJwnhcY1m0H1TA1rtgxdFyS13LI175hVZ5/YaQlbIq2K6 bF8W03Txsq; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org > [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of > teemu.savolainen@nokia.com > Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 10:14 AM > To: shemant@cisco.com; v6ops@ops.ietf.org > Cc: wbeebee@cisco.com > Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft > > Thanks for quick reply, I was ok with other things than this one: > > >- 7.1. In 3GPP case the /64 prefix is not only for LAN > >interfaces, but also for the WAN interface. Thus I'd rather > >say:".. across multiple LAN interfaces, possibly including WAN > >interfase as well, and the CPE router..". Then "..any two LAN > >interfaces.." -> "..any two interfaces..". And still later > >"..if any two disparate LAN interfaces..." -> "..if any two > >disparate interfaces..". > > > > > >Disagree. You are suggesting one implement ND Proxy between > >the WAN and LAN interfaces. For the CPE Rtr, the WAN and LAN > >interface(s) are two different routing domains - if one can > >perform routing between domains, why support ND Proxy? We are > >also making the last sentence better in section 7.1 as follows: > > Yes. That is what has to be done in the link types we have to > support. I don't see any other way when there is just single > /64 received from point-to-point WAN interface (in RA) which > has to be enough for numbering the "CPE" itself and all the > devices in Ethernet LAN behind. Please let me know if there > is a better way. > > Only alternative I see is to have NAT66 in CPE similar to > IPv4 NAT we already have to share the single IPv4 address we > get from operator. I feel compelled to point out that draft-mrw-behave-nat66-02.txt, "IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Address Translation (NAT66)" does not share IPv6 addresses. -d > It would be very nice if there would be DHCPv6 PD available > for "CPE" to ask for prefixes for LAN, but unfortunately that > is not always the case. > > I think we discussed this in IETF#73 corridor, but I have > forgotten details... So maybe I should write a link-type > specific document, which would describe this behaviour (maybe > corner-case from IETF point of view, but the most important > use-case from my point of view)? After all, I guess it is > better to describe it rather than have it just as > implementation-specific design choice? > > Best regards, > > Teemu (I will not be able to make the v6ops meeting as > I have to be in shara BOF) From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 20 11:19:35 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 147083A696A for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:19:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.796 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.901, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 zTYVmQEyAz1C for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:19:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDF6D3A68D5 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:19:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LkjJw-000GRh-8p for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:19:52 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.70] (helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LkjJq-000GQz-CW for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:19:48 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,396,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="159002577" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Mar 2009 18:19:45 +0000 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2KIJjx6022048; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:19:45 -0700 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2KIJhLv017738; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:19:45 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.118]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:19:42 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:19:38 -0400 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Thread-Index: AcmdcKeRcryZ/MspT8qEcavULU5jWgAA1IrwACOcU6AAAwEyYAAmvCPAAq6t04AAAT1xwAAEpsWgAAGa9lAAADlukAABH98wAAA3L9A= From: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" To: Cc: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Mar 2009 18:19:42.0811 (UTC) FILETIME=[70B1B2B0:01C9A988] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=4181; t=1237573186; x=1238437186; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=wbeebee@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Wes=20Beebee=20(wbeebee)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20Posted=20a=20new=20copy=20of=20CPE=20Rt r=20draft |Sender:=20; bh=u+nNr9B1VwgH+ocsZL1+I9KyWi7adFcg2HTNI+iEk3I=; b=azAEEdVRIkA6kDdlxz1T7oVq/T+NlUH2AHw+P8WKPnJZ9LfID8i2u6tVFo C5KJM7Mq8YqO7pXhufDo8wTRBqsh3LXdMwt6hxyray/lFbmYr+rWrnUjY1lj Me2AMRlQee; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=wbeebee@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: =20 Now I think I understand your requirements: 1) no PD 2) Only one /64 on the WAN link 3) Disparate link types (can't bridge) 4) Don't want NAT 5) Global communication for one or more LAN links 6) Want to use SLAAC for configuring all addresses Yes, I agree, in this scenario, you'll need to use ND proxy between the WAN and LAN links. We can include this scenario and the need for ND proxy in the CPE Router specification. - Wes=20 -----Original Message----- From: teemu.savolainen@nokia.com [mailto:teemu.savolainen@nokia.com] Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:55 PM To: Hemant Singh (shemant); v6ops@ops.ietf.org Cc: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Hemant, Well, the RFC4389 describes this functionality of sharing the prefix between WAN and LAN. I don't see how the ULAs could be used for global communication by devices in LAN. Best regards, Teemu >-----Original Message----- >From: ext Hemant Singh (shemant) [mailto:shemant@cisco.com] >Sent: 20 March, 2009 10:39 >To: Savolainen Teemu (Nokia-D-MSW/Tampere); v6ops@ops.ietf.org >Cc: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) >Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft > >Teemu, > >If your SP does not dole out a PD to the CPE Rtr and as you say, your=20 >common case is just one /64 doled out to the WAN interface with PPP. >Ok, so if your LAN interface(s) are assigned addresses using SLAAC,=20 >since SLAAC needs a /64, how can you possibly use the WAN's /64 to=20 >assign addresses to the LAN interface(s)? It's not possible. Yes, you >could run a DHCPv6 server in the device and then sub-delegate the /64. >Hopefully such a DHCPv6 server sub-delegation is legal in IPv6 >standards... =20 > >Alternatively, you can use ULA for the LAN and use the CPE Rtr as a=20 >router between WAN and LAN and not have anything to do with ND Proxy. > >Hemant > >-----Original Message----- >From: teemu.savolainen@nokia.com [mailto:teemu.savolainen@nokia.com] >Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:14 PM >To: Hemant Singh (shemant); v6ops@ops.ietf.org >Cc: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) >Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft > >Thanks for quick reply, I was ok with other things than this one: > >>- 7.1. In 3GPP case the /64 prefix is not only for LAN >interfaces, but >>also for the WAN interface. Thus I'd rather say:".. across >multiple LAN >>interfaces, possibly including WAN interfase as well, and the CPE=20 >>router..". Then "..any two LAN interfaces.." -> "..any two=20 >>interfaces..". And still later "..if any two disparate LAN=20 >>interfaces..." -> "..if any two disparate interfaces..". >> >> >>Disagree. You are suggesting one implement ND Proxy between >the WAN and >>LAN interfaces. For the CPE Rtr, the WAN and LAN >>interface(s) are two different routing domains - if one can perform=20 >>routing between domains, why support ND Proxy? We are also >making the >>last sentence better in section 7.1 as follows: > >Yes. That is what has to be done in the link types we have to support.=20 >I don't see any other way when there is just single >/64 received from point-to-point WAN interface (in RA) which has to be=20 >enough for numbering the "CPE" itself and all the devices in Ethernet=20 >LAN behind. >Please let me know if there is a better way. > >Only alternative I see is to have NAT66 in CPE similar to IPv4 NAT we=20 >already have to share the single IPv4 address we get from operator. > >It would be very nice if there would be DHCPv6 PD available for "CPE"=20 >to ask for prefixes for LAN, but unfortunately that is not always the=20 >case. > >I think we discussed this in IETF#73 corridor, but I have forgotten=20 >details... So maybe I should write a link-type specific document, which >would describe this behaviour (maybe corner-case from IETF point of=20 >view, but the most important use-case from my point of view)? After=20 >all, I guess it is better to describe it rather than have it just as=20 >implementation-specific design choice? > >Best regards, > > Teemu (I will not be able to make the v6ops meeting as I have to be in=20 >shara BOF) > From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 20 11:20:52 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C55B3A6A28 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:20:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.22 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.325, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 jSmCa9W0alMa for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:20:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B46C03A696A for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:20:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LkjLC-000GaI-NN for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:21:10 +0000 Received: from [64.102.122.149] (helo=rtp-iport-2.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LkjL6-000GZS-FL for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:21:07 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,396,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="40022466" Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Mar 2009 18:21:03 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2KIL3X3006142; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:21:03 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2KIL3Dj028888; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:21:03 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.40]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:21:03 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:21:02 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F275362B@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Thread-Index: AcmdcKeRcryZ/MspT8qEcavULU5jWgAA1IrwACOcU6AAAwEyYAAmvCPAAq6t04AAAT1xwAAEpsWgAAGa9lAAAImtQAAAmw9AAABgAVA= References: <110c01c99e03$c46343a0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <021d01c99e10$888458d0$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F2753475@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F27535CF@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0D87FF79@crexc41p> <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F275362B@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" To: , , Cc: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Mar 2009 18:21:03.0186 (UTC) FILETIME=[A099F320:01C9A988] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=6240; t=1237573263; x=1238437263; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20Posted=20a=20new=20copy=20of=20CPE=20Rt r=20draft |Sender:=20 |To:=20,=20,=20 ; bh=o83B84wSfsJ534M6sqXmPKLWzeZtOn/r5X05vqd5Os0=; b=Xr17dqApfNc7bsOOIdDGv4kiD1IBY06lNaqVKACdpuAP3DwsCF25VccBb6 RLtL8twYoyUdUjMOJ7AqYZ2zefJM+q0vj36raI4pt0m0sNzN9tVO3T0O/eJq vqDXrhQAn3; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=shemant@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Right, Teemu. What I was saying that if a /64 is allocated to the WAN, then one cannot sub-delegate this /64 to the LAN interface(s) if the LAN uses SLAAC because SLAAC has a MUST for /64 and sub-delegation would have to go for a longer prefix. Certainly, if no sub-delegation is used, then as you say, use other addresses from the same prefix for LAN - that is fine. Hemant -----Original Message----- From: teemu.savolainen@nokia.com [mailto:teemu.savolainen@nokia.com]=20 Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 2:15 PM To: bs7652@att.com; Hemant Singh (shemant); v6ops@ops.ietf.org Cc: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Hi, In the case I look the network allocates unique /64 for the PPP link, and thereby allows 2^64-1 or so addresses configured from that prefix (network reserves one address for the router on the SP side of the point-to-point link). Do we have terminology issue here? You could indeed say all hosts configure IPv6 address from the prefix received via WAN interface, so from that point of view all these hosts are logically connected to WAN, although in reality they go trough the ND proxy device. It cannot be bridged, as the link types are different (PPP and Ethernet), but proxied mode.=20 Best regards, Teemu >-----Original Message----- >From: ext Stark, Barbara [mailto:bs7652@att.com]=20 >Sent: 20 March, 2009 11:06 >To: Hemant Singh (shemant); Savolainen Teemu=20 >(Nokia-D-MSW/Tampere); v6ops@ops.ietf.org >Cc: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) >Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft > >Another alternative, might be for the router to allow the its=20 >owner to put it in a bridged mode, instead of router mode. The=20 >"CPE router" could still get its own IPv6 address from the=20 >WAN, as a host should. But all devices in the LAN would=20 >effectively just be hosts off the WAN, and there would be no=20 >real LAN. There would be no ULA either. The question is=20 >whether the design of the WAN would limit the number of hosts=20 >that could be given addresses across that one interface. If=20 >that were the case, then this wouldn't work, and the CPE=20 >router would be forced to do a NAT66. > >In many ways, this case is very similar to that of the=20 >cascaded router that isn't given a prefix. > >I don't think this is a corner case. >Barbara > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org=20 >[mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Hemant Singh (shemant) >Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:39 PM >To: teemu.savolainen@nokia.com; v6ops@ops.ietf.org >Cc: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) >Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft > >Teemu, > >If your SP does not dole out a PD to the CPE Rtr and as you=20 >say, your common case is just one /64 doled out to the WAN=20 >interface with PPP. >Ok, so if your LAN interface(s) are assigned addresses using=20 >SLAAC, since SLAAC needs a /64, how can you possibly use the=20 >WAN's /64 to assign addresses to the LAN interface(s)? It's=20 >not possible. Yes, you could run a DHCPv6 server in the=20 >device and then sub-delegate the /64. >Hopefully such a DHCPv6 server sub-delegation is legal in IPv6 >standards... =20 > >Alternatively, you can use ULA for the LAN and use the CPE Rtr=20 >as a router between WAN and LAN and not have anything to do=20 >with ND Proxy. > >Hemant > >-----Original Message----- >From: teemu.savolainen@nokia.com [mailto:teemu.savolainen@nokia.com] >Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:14 PM >To: Hemant Singh (shemant); v6ops@ops.ietf.org >Cc: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) >Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft > >Thanks for quick reply, I was ok with other things than this one: > >>- 7.1. In 3GPP case the /64 prefix is not only for LAN=20 >interfaces, but=20 >>also for the WAN interface. Thus I'd rather say:".. across=20 >multiple LAN=20 >>interfaces, possibly including WAN interfase as well, and the CPE=20 >>router..". Then "..any two LAN interfaces.." -> "..any two=20 >>interfaces..". And still later "..if any two disparate LAN=20 >>interfaces..." -> "..if any two disparate interfaces..". >> >> >>Disagree. You are suggesting one implement ND Proxy between=20 >the WAN and=20 >>LAN interfaces. For the CPE Rtr, the WAN and LAN >>interface(s) are two different routing domains - if one can perform=20 >>routing between domains, why support ND Proxy? We are also=20 >making the=20 >>last sentence better in section 7.1 as follows: > >Yes. That is what has to be done in the link types we have to=20 >support. I don't see any other way when there is just single=20 >/64 received from point-to-point WAN interface (in RA) which=20 >has to be enough for numbering the "CPE" itself and all the=20 >devices in Ethernet LAN behind. >Please let me know if there is a better way. > >Only alternative I see is to have NAT66 in CPE similar to IPv4=20 >NAT we already have to share the single IPv4 address we get=20 >from operator. > >It would be very nice if there would be DHCPv6 PD available=20 >for "CPE" to ask for prefixes for LAN, but unfortunately that=20 >is not always the case. > >I think we discussed this in IETF#73 corridor, but I have=20 >forgotten details... So maybe I should write a link-type=20 >specific document, which would describe this behaviour (maybe=20 >corner-case from IETF point of view, but the most important=20 >use-case from my point of view)? After all, I guess it is=20 >better to describe it rather than have it just as=20 >implementation-specific design choice? > >Best regards, > > Teemu (I will not be able to make the v6ops meeting as=20 >I have to be in shara BOF) > > >***** > >The information transmitted is intended only for the person or=20 >entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential,=20 >proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review,=20 >retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of=20 >any action in reliance upon this information by persons or=20 >entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If=20 >you received this in error, please contact the sender and=20 >delete the material from all computers. GA625 > > > From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 20 11:22:48 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF8363A68D5 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:22:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.875 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.875 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.980, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 HdM9TA51bc1w for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:22:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBC943A6C01 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:22:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LkjMu-000Gom-7K for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:22:56 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.71] (helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LkjMn-000Gn0-Pj for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:22:52 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,396,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="144445395" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Mar 2009 18:22:49 +0000 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2KIMnH8027910; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:22:49 -0700 Received: from dwingwxp01 (sjc-vpn5-1130.cisco.com [10.21.92.106]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2KIMnM1026454; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:22:49 GMT From: "Dan Wing" To: "'Stark, Barbara'" , "'Hemant Singh \(shemant\)'" , , Cc: "'Wes Beebee \(wbeebee\)'" References: <110c01c99e03$c46343a0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <021d01c99e10$888458d0$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F2753475@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F27535CF@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0D87FF79@crexc41p> Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:22:49 -0700 Message-ID: <019f01c9a988$dfd05a70$335a150a@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0D87FF79@crexc41p> Thread-Index: AcmdcKeRcryZ/MspT8qEcavULU5jWgAA1IrwACOcU6AAAwEyYAAmvCPAAq6t04AAAT1xwAAEpsWgAAGa9lAAAImtQAABAwrQ X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=5354; t=1237573369; x=1238437369; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=dwing@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Dan=20Wing=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20Posted=20a=20new=20copy=20of=20CPE=20Rt r=20draft |Sender:=20; bh=RPU3fZjTvfhcUwmlKReQY9HgvFHIPtrYWNeYbWAR038=; b=qJjU1JMjXfTiQMg4PEYFzztnw/C/UR6ZGmR8rwepAKHEVJQGPLgJsaEkuR iW4+cQAjSlbha6sFj2zib6lQtIasIkHNGsB5rrNnsA9oJ4d3yPMohS2qrvKz 5VImCYk9lF; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=dwing@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org > [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stark, Barbara > Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 11:06 AM > To: Hemant Singh (shemant); teemu.savolainen@nokia.com; > v6ops@ops.ietf.org > Cc: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) > Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft > > Another alternative, might be for the router to allow the its owner to > put it in a bridged mode, instead of router mode. The "CPE > router" could > still get its own IPv6 address from the WAN, as a host should. But all > devices in the LAN would effectively just be hosts off the WAN, and > there would be no real LAN. There would be no ULA either. The question > is whether the design of the WAN would limit the number of hosts that > could be given addresses across that one interface. If that were the > case, then this wouldn't work, and the CPE router would be > forced to do > a NAT66. That would create a reliance on the ISP network for the in-home network to function. It would be ashame if my security system, IP-enabled television and Blu-Ray player, TiVo, NAS, etc., all break if the access link is down. Perhaps to avoid that problem the router could get smarter and hand out ULAs if it notices the WAN is down. But that idea feels pretty fragile, too. -d > In many ways, this case is very similar to that of the cascaded router > that isn't given a prefix. > > I don't think this is a corner case. > Barbara > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Hemant Singh (shemant) > Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:39 PM > To: teemu.savolainen@nokia.com; v6ops@ops.ietf.org > Cc: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) > Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft > > Teemu, > > If your SP does not dole out a PD to the CPE Rtr and as you say, your > common case is just one /64 doled out to the WAN interface with PPP. > Ok, so if your LAN interface(s) are assigned addresses using SLAAC, > since SLAAC needs a /64, how can you possibly use the WAN's /64 to > assign addresses to the LAN interface(s)? It's not possible. > Yes, you > could run a DHCPv6 server in the device and then sub-delegate the /64. > Hopefully such a DHCPv6 server sub-delegation is legal in IPv6 > standards... > > Alternatively, you can use ULA for the LAN and use the CPE Rtr as a > router between WAN and LAN and not have anything to do with ND Proxy. > > Hemant > > -----Original Message----- > From: teemu.savolainen@nokia.com [mailto:teemu.savolainen@nokia.com] > Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:14 PM > To: Hemant Singh (shemant); v6ops@ops.ietf.org > Cc: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) > Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft > > Thanks for quick reply, I was ok with other things than this one: > > >- 7.1. In 3GPP case the /64 prefix is not only for LAN > >interfaces, but also for the WAN interface. Thus I'd rather > >say:".. across multiple LAN interfaces, possibly including WAN > >interfase as well, and the CPE router..". Then "..any two LAN > >interfaces.." -> "..any two interfaces..". And still later > >"..if any two disparate LAN interfaces..." -> "..if any two > >disparate interfaces..". > > > > > >Disagree. You are suggesting one implement ND Proxy between > >the WAN and LAN interfaces. For the CPE Rtr, the WAN and LAN > >interface(s) are two different routing domains - if one can > >perform routing between domains, why support ND Proxy? We are > >also making the last sentence better in section 7.1 as follows: > > Yes. That is what has to be done in the link types we have to > support. I > don't see any other way when there is just single /64 received from > point-to-point WAN interface (in RA) which has to be enough for > numbering the "CPE" itself and all the devices in Ethernet LAN behind. > Please let me know if there is a better way. > > Only alternative I see is to have NAT66 in CPE similar to IPv4 NAT we > already have to share the single IPv4 address we get from operator. > > It would be very nice if there would be DHCPv6 PD available > for "CPE" to > ask for prefixes for LAN, but unfortunately that is not > always the case. > > I think we discussed this in IETF#73 corridor, but I have forgotten > details... So maybe I should write a link-type specific > document, which > would describe this behaviour (maybe corner-case from IETF point of > view, but the most important use-case from my point of view)? > After all, > I guess it is better to describe it rather than have it just as > implementation-specific design choice? > > Best regards, > > Teemu (I will not be able to make the v6ops meeting as I have to > be in shara BOF) > > > ***** > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person > or entity to which it is addressed and may contain > confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any > review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or > taking of any action in reliance upon this information by > persons or entities other than the intended recipient is > prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the > sender and delete the material from all computers. GA625 > > > From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 20 11:23:27 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 105793A6A28 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:23:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.174 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.174 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.279, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 CjzkDPUz9trm for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:23:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDADA3A69F7 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:23:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LkjNg-000Gum-85 for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:23:44 +0000 Received: from [64.102.122.149] (helo=rtp-iport-2.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LkjNb-000Gtx-7V for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:23:41 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,396,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="40022911" Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Mar 2009 18:23:38 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2KINcmZ023974; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:23:38 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2KINcAX000075; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:23:38 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.40]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:23:38 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:23:36 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Thread-Index: AcmdcKeRcryZ/MspT8qEcavULU5jWgAA1IrwACOcU6AAAwEyYAAmvCPAAq6t04AAAT1xwAAEpsWgAAGa9lAAADlukAABH98wAAA3L9AAABUtQA== References: From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" To: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" , Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Mar 2009 18:23:38.0061 (UTC) FILETIME=[FCE9FFD0:01C9A988] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=4817; t=1237573418; x=1238437418; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20Posted=20a=20new=20copy=20of=20CPE=20Rt r=20draft |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Wes=20Beebee=20(wbeebee)=22=20 ,=20; bh=YOAjiYq5eL9gTUc3qP7Nu+BTalQchdd35lSnBZtgqR0=; b=RqRDcZFoA/5upwVXDhlGmb5J+htu3m3Z0knf2spK79tFRjYH64XKNGWqk4 7eyfPFdR+dClPj63DqME9WiRiK274zVWxFa3B09iIlgSKm7vJuUPHDhqRmba uojO+4vw0j; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=shemant@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Wes, We already catered to Teemu by adding a ND Proxy section to the CPE Rtr because I understood his case for disparate media. What we will add to that section is allow ND Proxy between the WAN and the LAN interfaces and also list what kind of deployment uses such a ND Proxy by listing the requirements we came up with below. So, Teemu, you should be all set now, right? Thanks, Hemant -----Original Message----- From: Wes Beebee (wbeebee)=20 Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 2:20 PM To: teemu.savolainen@nokia.com Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); v6ops@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft =20 Now I think I understand your requirements: 1) no PD 2) Only one /64 on the WAN link 3) Disparate link types (can't bridge) 4) Don't want NAT 5) Global communication for one or more LAN links 6) Want to use SLAAC for configuring all addresses Yes, I agree, in this scenario, you'll need to use ND proxy between the WAN and LAN links. We can include this scenario and the need for ND proxy in the CPE Router specification. - Wes=20 -----Original Message----- From: teemu.savolainen@nokia.com [mailto:teemu.savolainen@nokia.com] Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:55 PM To: Hemant Singh (shemant); v6ops@ops.ietf.org Cc: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Hemant, Well, the RFC4389 describes this functionality of sharing the prefix between WAN and LAN. I don't see how the ULAs could be used for global communication by devices in LAN. Best regards, Teemu >-----Original Message----- >From: ext Hemant Singh (shemant) [mailto:shemant@cisco.com] >Sent: 20 March, 2009 10:39 >To: Savolainen Teemu (Nokia-D-MSW/Tampere); v6ops@ops.ietf.org >Cc: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) >Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft > >Teemu, > >If your SP does not dole out a PD to the CPE Rtr and as you say, your=20 >common case is just one /64 doled out to the WAN interface with PPP. >Ok, so if your LAN interface(s) are assigned addresses using SLAAC,=20 >since SLAAC needs a /64, how can you possibly use the WAN's /64 to=20 >assign addresses to the LAN interface(s)? It's not possible. Yes, you >could run a DHCPv6 server in the device and then sub-delegate the /64. >Hopefully such a DHCPv6 server sub-delegation is legal in IPv6 >standards... =20 > >Alternatively, you can use ULA for the LAN and use the CPE Rtr as a=20 >router between WAN and LAN and not have anything to do with ND Proxy. > >Hemant > >-----Original Message----- >From: teemu.savolainen@nokia.com [mailto:teemu.savolainen@nokia.com] >Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:14 PM >To: Hemant Singh (shemant); v6ops@ops.ietf.org >Cc: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) >Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft > >Thanks for quick reply, I was ok with other things than this one: > >>- 7.1. In 3GPP case the /64 prefix is not only for LAN >interfaces, but >>also for the WAN interface. Thus I'd rather say:".. across >multiple LAN >>interfaces, possibly including WAN interfase as well, and the CPE=20 >>router..". Then "..any two LAN interfaces.." -> "..any two=20 >>interfaces..". And still later "..if any two disparate LAN=20 >>interfaces..." -> "..if any two disparate interfaces..". >> >> >>Disagree. You are suggesting one implement ND Proxy between >the WAN and >>LAN interfaces. For the CPE Rtr, the WAN and LAN >>interface(s) are two different routing domains - if one can perform=20 >>routing between domains, why support ND Proxy? We are also >making the >>last sentence better in section 7.1 as follows: > >Yes. That is what has to be done in the link types we have to support.=20 >I don't see any other way when there is just single >/64 received from point-to-point WAN interface (in RA) which has to be=20 >enough for numbering the "CPE" itself and all the devices in Ethernet=20 >LAN behind. >Please let me know if there is a better way. > >Only alternative I see is to have NAT66 in CPE similar to IPv4 NAT we=20 >already have to share the single IPv4 address we get from operator. > >It would be very nice if there would be DHCPv6 PD available for "CPE"=20 >to ask for prefixes for LAN, but unfortunately that is not always the=20 >case. > >I think we discussed this in IETF#73 corridor, but I have forgotten=20 >details... So maybe I should write a link-type specific document, which >would describe this behaviour (maybe corner-case from IETF point of=20 >view, but the most important use-case from my point of view)? After=20 >all, I guess it is better to describe it rather than have it just as=20 >implementation-specific design choice? > >Best regards, > > Teemu (I will not be able to make the v6ops meeting as I have to be in=20 >shara BOF) > From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 20 11:23:33 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DD243A6A28 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:23:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -98.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, MANGLED_LIST=2.3, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 Gy4sL9em2Qj1 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:23:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B1123A686A for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:23:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LkjNr-000Gwb-V8 for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:23:55 +0000 Received: from [2001:4f8:3:36::162] (helo=mon.jinmei.org) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LkjNn-000Gvb-03 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:23:52 +0000 Received: from jmb.jinmei.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:bb:217:f2ff:fee0:a91f]) by mon.jinmei.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99F9033C2E; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:23:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:23:50 -0700 Message-ID: From: JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= To: Nathan Ward Cc: v6ops WG Subject: Re: Fwd: I-D Action:draft-nward-6to4-qualification-00.txt In-Reply-To: <14E2E072-54AA-4743-9736-9AFE3A379AF1@daork.net> References: <20090303113001.36E1E3A6BFF@core3.amsl.com> <14E2E072-54AA-4743-9736-9AFE3A379AF1@daork.net> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) Emacs/22.1 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: At Wed, 4 Mar 2009 00:36:00 +1300, Nathan Ward wrote: > I have just submitted the following, comments appreciated! Please note > that it is very draft so I could get this in by the deadline and get > some discussion happening. I've quickly read this draft. It seems to me a reasonable and useful proposal. Here are some minor comments: - I'd add a reference to RFC3068 with the first occurrence of "192.88.99.1". (In section 2.2 of this version of draft). - This 'MAY' looks awkward to me: SHALL cease. Failure at this stage MAY mean an IPv4 firewall is in place. (Section 3.2, 4th para) because this doesn't actually define any implementation or operational behavior. Can't this just be a lower-cased 'may'? (there's at least another awkward MAY in the draft) - Section 5.1, 1st para A 24-bit IPv4 prefix, TBD1. Only one IPv4 address is used, however 24 bits is likely to be widely accepted in BGP peering sessions. I'd refer to RFC3068 since it provides more detailed rationale for the use of a /24 prefix. It might even be better to say the rationale is the same (isn't it?) explicitly. --- JINMEI, Tatuya Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 20 11:31:59 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 090A928C146 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:31:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.751 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.751 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.856, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 yK-NxbB77Vk8 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:31:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A3353A696B for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:31:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LkjV7-000Hmx-5H for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:31:25 +0000 Received: from [192.100.122.230] (helo=mgw-mx03.nokia.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LkjV0-000HmO-S6 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:31:21 +0000 Received: from esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh106.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.213]) by mgw-mx03.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.6/Switch-3.2.6) with ESMTP id n2KIV3Nd005117; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:31:12 +0200 Received: from esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.183]) by esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:30:49 +0200 Received: from vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.160.244.22]) by esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:30:48 +0200 Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.8]) by vaebh101.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:30:39 +0200 Received: from nok-am1mhub-06.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.10) by NOK-AM1MHUB-04.mgdnok.nokia.com (65.54.30.8) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.340.0; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:30:38 +0100 Received: from NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.86]) by nok-am1mhub-06.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.10]) with mapi; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:30:38 +0100 From: To: , CC: Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:29:58 +0100 Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Thread-Topic: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft Thread-Index: AcmdcKeRcryZ/MspT8qEcavULU5jWgAA1IrwACOcU6AAAwEyYAAmvCPAAq6t04AAAT1xwAAEpsWgAAGa9lAAADlukAABH98wAAA3L9AAABUtQAAAGpzw Message-ID: <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F2753633@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> References: In-Reply-To: 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-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Mar 2009 18:30:39.0145 (UTC) FILETIME=[F7E65190:01C9A989] X-Nokia-AV: Clean Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Wes, Hemant, I'm very happy! We're all set now. You came up with very good list of requi= rements. I think the DHCPv6 PD is superior and should be the recommended solution, b= ut when it is not available (like in current 3GPP cellular network standard= s), we have need for ND proxy. Please let me know off-list if you need docu= mentation references. Best regards, Teemu >-----Original Message----- >From: ext Hemant Singh (shemant) [mailto:shemant@cisco.com]=20 >Sent: 20 March, 2009 11:24 >To: Wes Beebee (wbeebee); Savolainen Teemu (Nokia-D-MSW/Tampere) >Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org >Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft > >Wes, > >We already catered to Teemu by adding a ND Proxy section to=20 >the CPE Rtr because I understood his case for disparate media.=20 > What we will add to that section is allow ND Proxy between=20 >the WAN and the LAN interfaces and also list what kind of=20 >deployment uses such a ND Proxy by listing the requirements we=20 >came up with below. > >So, Teemu, you should be all set now, right? > >Thanks, > >Hemant > >-----Original Message----- >From: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) >Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 2:20 PM >To: teemu.savolainen@nokia.com >Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); v6ops@ops.ietf.org >Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft > >=20 >Now I think I understand your requirements: > >1) no PD >2) Only one /64 on the WAN link >3) Disparate link types (can't bridge) >4) Don't want NAT >5) Global communication for one or more LAN links >6) Want to use SLAAC for configuring all addresses > >Yes, I agree, in this scenario, you'll need to use ND proxy=20 >between the WAN and LAN links. We can include this scenario=20 >and the need for ND proxy in the CPE Router specification. > >- Wes=20 > >-----Original Message----- >From: teemu.savolainen@nokia.com [mailto:teemu.savolainen@nokia.com] >Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:55 PM >To: Hemant Singh (shemant); v6ops@ops.ietf.org >Cc: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) >Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft > >Hemant, > >Well, the RFC4389 describes this functionality of sharing the=20 >prefix between WAN and LAN. > >I don't see how the ULAs could be used for global=20 >communication by devices in LAN. > >Best regards, > > Teemu > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: ext Hemant Singh (shemant) [mailto:shemant@cisco.com] >>Sent: 20 March, 2009 10:39 >>To: Savolainen Teemu (Nokia-D-MSW/Tampere); v6ops@ops.ietf.org >>Cc: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) >>Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft >> >>Teemu, >> >>If your SP does not dole out a PD to the CPE Rtr and as you say, your=20 >>common case is just one /64 doled out to the WAN interface with PPP. >>Ok, so if your LAN interface(s) are assigned addresses using SLAAC,=20 >>since SLAAC needs a /64, how can you possibly use the WAN's /64 to=20 >>assign addresses to the LAN interface(s)? It's not possible.=20 > Yes, you > >>could run a DHCPv6 server in the device and then sub-delegate the /64. >>Hopefully such a DHCPv6 server sub-delegation is legal in IPv6 >>standards... =20 >> >>Alternatively, you can use ULA for the LAN and use the CPE Rtr as a=20 >>router between WAN and LAN and not have anything to do with ND Proxy. >> >>Hemant >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: teemu.savolainen@nokia.com [mailto:teemu.savolainen@nokia.com] >>Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:14 PM >>To: Hemant Singh (shemant); v6ops@ops.ietf.org >>Cc: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) >>Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft >> >>Thanks for quick reply, I was ok with other things than this one: >> >>>- 7.1. In 3GPP case the /64 prefix is not only for LAN >>interfaces, but >>>also for the WAN interface. Thus I'd rather say:".. across >>multiple LAN >>>interfaces, possibly including WAN interfase as well, and the CPE=20 >>>router..". Then "..any two LAN interfaces.." -> "..any two=20 >>>interfaces..". And still later "..if any two disparate LAN=20 >>>interfaces..." -> "..if any two disparate interfaces..". >>> >>> >>>Disagree. You are suggesting one implement ND Proxy between >>the WAN and >>>LAN interfaces. For the CPE Rtr, the WAN and LAN >>>interface(s) are two different routing domains - if one can perform=20 >>>routing between domains, why support ND Proxy? We are also >>making the >>>last sentence better in section 7.1 as follows: >> >>Yes. That is what has to be done in the link types we have to=20 >support.=20 >>I don't see any other way when there is just single >>/64 received from point-to-point WAN interface (in RA) which=20 >has to be=20 >>enough for numbering the "CPE" itself and all the devices in Ethernet=20 >>LAN behind. >>Please let me know if there is a better way. >> >>Only alternative I see is to have NAT66 in CPE similar to IPv4 NAT we=20 >>already have to share the single IPv4 address we get from operator. >> >>It would be very nice if there would be DHCPv6 PD available for "CPE"=20 >>to ask for prefixes for LAN, but unfortunately that is not always the=20 >>case. >> >>I think we discussed this in IETF#73 corridor, but I have forgotten=20 >>details... So maybe I should write a link-type specific=20 >document, which > >>would describe this behaviour (maybe corner-case from IETF point of=20 >>view, but the most important use-case from my point of view)? After=20 >>all, I guess it is better to describe it rather than have it just as=20 >>implementation-specific design choice? >> >>Best regards, >> >> Teemu (I will not be able to make the v6ops meeting as I have to >be in=20 >>shara BOF) >> >= From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 20 11:35:40 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E8523A696B for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:35:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.252 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.252 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, MANGLED_LIST=2.3, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 GTNFoyMtn9eq for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:35:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2236C3A67A1 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:35:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LkjZN-000IGq-1w for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:35:49 +0000 Received: from [202.50.176.161] (helo=unobtainium.braintrust.co.nz) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LkjZH-000IG7-AH for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:35:45 +0000 Received: from [192.168.20.177] (unknown [216.239.45.19]) by unobtainium.braintrust.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B6AA27522 for ; Sat, 21 Mar 2009 07:35:41 +1300 (NZDT) Message-Id: <4AE8F491-0185-4A98-BA46-43BF7D94E753@daork.net> From: Nathan Ward To: v6ops WG In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-nward-6to4-qualification-00.txt Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:35:38 -0700 References: <20090303113001.36E1E3A6BFF@core3.amsl.com> <14E2E072-54AA-4743-9736-9AFE3A379AF1@daork.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On 20/03/2009, at 11:23 AM, JINMEI Tatuya / =E7=A5=9E=E6=98=8E=E9=81=94=E5= =93=89 wrote: > At Wed, 4 Mar 2009 00:36:00 +1300, > Nathan Ward wrote: > >> I have just submitted the following, comments appreciated! Please =20 >> note >> that it is very draft so I could get this in by the deadline and get >> some discussion happening. > > I've quickly read this draft. It seems to me a reasonable and useful > proposal. Here are some minor comments: > > - I'd add a reference to RFC3068 with the first occurrence of > "192.88.99.1". (In section 2.2 of this version of draft). Yup - this was written fast before the deadline so is very short on =20 references. > - This 'MAY' looks awkward to me: > > SHALL cease. Failure at this stage MAY mean an IPv4 firewall is in > place. > (Section 3.2, 4th para) > > because this doesn't actually define any implementation or > operational behavior. Can't this just be a lower-cased 'may'? > (there's at least another awkward MAY in the draft) I have had this comment from Brian Carpenter as well, so will make =20 this change. > - Section 5.1, 1st para > > A 24-bit IPv4 prefix, TBD1. Only one IPv4 address is used, however > 24 bits is likely to be widely accepted in BGP peering sessions. > > I'd refer to RFC3068 since it provides more detailed rationale for > the use of a /24 prefix. It might even be better to say the > rationale is the same (isn't it?) explicitly. Sounds good. Cheers for your comments! -- Nathan Ward From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 20 11:40:22 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 045FB3A6C00 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:40:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 yso3pV3wkjEL for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:40:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 263E63A6BFF for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:40:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LkjdZ-000IvU-5w for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:40:09 +0000 Received: from [2001:1888:0:1:230:48ff:fe5b:3b50] (helo=outgoing01.lava.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LkjdS-000IuG-0m for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:40:05 +0000 Received: from [2001:1888::a:214:51ff:fe29:1e4e] (unknown [IPv6:2001:1888:0:a:214:51ff:fe29:1e4e]) by outgoing01.lava.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 974F0D027E; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 08:39:50 -1000 (HST) Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 08:39:50 -1000 (HST) From: Antonio Querubin To: teemu.savolainen@nokia.com cc: bs7652@att.com, shemant@cisco.com, v6ops@ops.ietf.org, wbeebee@cisco.com Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft In-Reply-To: <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F275362B@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> Message-ID: References: <110c01c99e03$c46343a0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <021d01c99e10$888458d0$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F2753475@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F27535CF@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0D87FF79@crexc41p> <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F275362B@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> User-Agent: Alpine 1.00 (OSX 882 2007-12-20) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, teemu.savolainen@nokia.com wrote: > Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:15:27 +0100 From: teemu.savolainen@nokia.com > To: bs7652@att.com, shemant@cisco.com, v6ops@ops.ietf.org Cc: > wbeebee@cisco.com Subject: RE: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft > > Hi, > > In the case I look the network allocates unique /64 for the PPP link, > and thereby allows 2^64-1 or so addresses configured from that prefix > (network reserves one address for the router on the SP side of the > point-to-point link). > > Do we have terminology issue here? You could indeed say all hosts > configure IPv6 address from the prefix received via WAN interface, so > from that point of view all these hosts are logically connected to WAN, > although in reality they go trough the ND proxy device. > > It cannot be bridged, as the link types are different (PPP and > Ethernet), but proxied mode. That assumes the WAN link is PPP. However, it could be bridged ethernet, in which case the ND proxy seems the path of least resistance. Antonio Querubin whois: AQ7-ARIN From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 20 12:10:16 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB5F63A68FD for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 12:10:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.102 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.102 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 sRLzUFrk+9M8 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 12:10:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 020193A67A1 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 12:10:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lkk64-000LEk-6v for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:09:36 +0000 Received: from [202.50.176.161] (helo=unobtainium.braintrust.co.nz) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lkk5z-000LEP-Dx for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:09:33 +0000 Received: from [192.168.20.177] (unknown [216.239.45.19]) by unobtainium.braintrust.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 739D627522 for ; Sat, 21 Mar 2009 08:09:29 +1300 (NZDT) Message-Id: From: Nathan Ward To: v6ops WG In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-nward-6to4-qualification-00.txt Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 12:09:26 -0700 References: <20090303113001.36E1E3A6BFF@core3.amsl.com> <14E2E072-54AA-4743-9736-9AFE3A379AF1@daork.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: A version -01 is available from http://don.braintrust.co.nz/~nward/draft-nward-6to4-qualification-01.txt with the following changes: - Explanation around what symmetric and asymmetric means in this context, and what they are for. - Added a section discussing where this mechanism is appropriate. I'm open to better names for this section, the current one seems weird. - Added a reference to RFC3056 in the first mention of 192.88.99.1 - Changed case for a MAY/may - Changed some AAAA/BBBB etc. to non-hex characters (M, N, etc.) - Added a reference to RFC3056 for /24 rationale - I also suggest a / 32 for the IPv6 asymmetric prefix. Is there similar rationale I can point to for this? I think that's it. I will submit properly when the tool becomes available again. Thanks all for your comments. -- Nathan Ward From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 20 12:22:30 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 444C03A6907 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 12:22:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -98.043 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.043 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.943, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, MANGLED_LIST=2.3, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 UnKNOZ+7SleM for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 12:22:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 504723A6C75 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 12:22:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LkkEU-000Le6-9z for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:18:18 +0000 Received: from [2001:4f8:3:36::162] (helo=mon.jinmei.org) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LkkEN-000Ldd-R2 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:18:15 +0000 Received: from jmb.jinmei.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:4f8:3:bb:217:f2ff:fee0:a91f]) by mon.jinmei.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BB8633C2E; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 12:18:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 12:18:11 -0700 Message-ID: From: JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= To: nward@braintrust.co.nz Cc: v6ops WG Subject: comments on draft-nward-ipv6-autoconfig-filtering-ethernet-00 User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) Emacs/22.1 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: I've read this draft. Here are some comments: - Section 1, 1st para [...], and many hosts already listen for RA messages and then subsequent to receiving and RA message either configure addressing statelessly, or statefully with DHCPv6. I can't grammatically parse this clause, especially about "then subsequent to receiving and RA message". Is this perhaps [...], and many hosts already listen for RA messages and then subsequent to receiving an RA message either configure addressing statelessly, or statefully with DHCPv6. or something? - Section 2.1, in the table: s/Router;s/Router's/ | Destination IPv6 | FF01::1 for unsolicited, an address in | | Address | FE80::/64 for solicited | s/FF01::1/FF02::1/ "FE80::/64 for solicited" is certainly the typical case, but is not the only possibility. The source of RS can be any unicast address (including) global, and the router can send a unicast RA to that address. - Section 2.2, 1st para DHCPv6 reply messages SHOULD only be sent by DHCPv6 servers and relays, and so should only enter a switch from a port with a DHCPv6 server or relay, and/or from a DHCPv6 server or relay's link-local IPv6 address or ethernet MAC address. This is not really correct either. As far as I understand it, there's no restriction on the source address of a DHCPv6 reply message. In particular, if the client and (off-link) server exchange unicast messages directly after the server allows it with the Server Unicast Option, the source address of a DHCPv6 reply from a server should be non-link-local. - Section 2.2, in the table | Destination IPv6 | An address in FE80::/64 | This is also not (always) true. One counter example is the above case where a client and an off-link server exchange messages directly. Even if the reply is sent from an on-link node (always the case for a relay), RFC3315 doesn't require the destination address is a link-local address. | UDP source port | 547 | I believe this is also not always true. RFC3315 only requires the server to listen to port 547, but doesn't say the server use the same source port for messages it generates. Admittedly, these cases are rare exceptions, so if we propose something strict concentrating on typical scenarios, that may make sense. But in that case we should at least note that it's not a protocol level requirement and there can be exception that was broken by the proposed filtering rule. - Section 3, 1st para An ethernet switch MUST be able to be configured to filter Router Advertisement and DHCPv6 reply messages under one or both of the following conditions: This MUST sounds too strong to me in a general statement like this. Personally, I wouldn't use any RFC2119 keyword here, and IMO more clarification is needed about in which case this requirement is mandated if we keep the MUST. - Section 3.1 It may be desirable for a switch to only transmit Router Solicitation and DHCPv6 request messages out a port if it is configured as a port having a router, DHCPv6 server or relay. Comment is sought for this. At least other DHCPv6 message that client can send must be allowed, i.e, all but Reply and Reconfigure. Relay-forward should also be allowed. --- JINMEI, Tatuya Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 20 16:01:56 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 286313A67D9 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:01:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.516 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.021, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 uiUCj-QFoFUS for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:01:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01E2B3A6A29 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:01:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LknfP-000909-QM for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 22:58:19 +0000 Received: from [209.85.142.187] (helo=ti-out-0910.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LknfL-0008zt-0I for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 22:58:17 +0000 Received: by ti-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id i7so814520tid.23 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:58:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=CtisQWb+uk2BtP5IFLMTZYx/SbHsWBh3M/Q0MGo4K7I=; b=UzRR8BoAkWyzStaTPDIG+yzMjA2b+tQQYYp5e4Gtm7zcJ2G+M7CQdqJ6X7x/+PVF28 L9fvPW+tJYco6vlLmYHcGGdnYmiQVCJj0rSkNvXWY2RbXnkMX6h5T1Z5Kbs8twYysDGG I26ljdCboh/1RaKpd0kJUn0VpHdODhy1qg8RI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=CXl0Q0KH7LTvNY0FZ4ouceW2qtgvrP9HAasyMk2x4zGbl50JJ8768fyaOE6qDMwTFo JLCVCuO9qcGvWjUCwlArogwly0pGTNIR9wvFB5LVu03OxFEB1jQknEw/0m1I+fqrIGrt SnoAw3GqrA4SpP6QL8KG2usl5e0R3cjvOX5/E= Received: by 10.110.14.3 with SMTP id 3mr3176945tin.50.1237589893369; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:58:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?10.1.1.4? (118-92-152-86.dsl.dyn.ihug.co.nz [118.92.152.86]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b7sm2175796tic.15.2009.03.20.15.58.09 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:58:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49C41F7B.4000000@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 11:58:03 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" CC: teemu.savolainen@nokia.com, v6ops@ops.ietf.org, "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" Subject: Re: Posted a new copy of CPE Rtr draft References: <110c01c99e03$c46343a0$c2f0200a@cisco.com> <021d01c99e10$888458d0$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27F2753475@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On 2009-03-21 04:36, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote: > Teemu, > > Thanks for the review. Please see inline below between and . ... > > - You mention DNS64 in the document (8.6), do you envision CPE router > could implement NAT64 as wall? I think NAT64 could be left out or just > mentioned shortly - without going into details (so that completing this > work would not pend on NAT64 work's progress), but how do you see? > > > We have deliberately stayed away from NAT64 so far. However, if a CGN > document says the CGN cannot support NA64 and the CPE Rtr must do so, we > are open to adding NAT64 to the CPE Rtr. > I'd be very surprised to see a CGN document making such a statement. The case you are suggesting is, I think, where the CPE has no path to a NAT64 (either a NAT64 provided by the subscriber's ISP, built into a CGN or not, or some NAT64 elsewehere). The scenario discussion in BEHAVE may clarify this, but for now we can say nothing IMHO. Brian From mercadorehabgraceland@aacpl.net Fri Mar 20 22:09:15 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BEFB3A6898 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 22:09:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.102 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.102 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_BR=0.955, HOST_EQ_BR=1.295, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.561, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02=0.383, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 xY-sJm12ceh4 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 22:09:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 201-0-139-61.dial-up.telesp.net.br (201-0-139-61.dial-up.telesp.net.br [201.0.139.61]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1012B3A6896 for ; Fri, 20 Mar 2009 22:09:05 -0700 (PDT) To: Subject: Sales Order walmart.com From: MensHealth.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090321050907.1012B3A6896@core3.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 22:09:05 -0700 (PDT)
Subscribe to Men's Health Today!



Subscribe to Men's Health Today!





To your health,


David Zinczenko
Editor-in-Chief
Subscribe to Men's Health Today!
Unsubscribe | Your Privacy Rights

¿ 2008 Rodale Inc., all rights reserved.
Customer Service Dept., 33 East Minor Street, Emmaus, PA 18098
From owens@ultrasis.com Sat Mar 21 01:36:16 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A941B3A685F; Sat, 21 Mar 2009 01:36:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -9.816 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.816 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 4ZyD2jgr18Qt; Sat, 21 Mar 2009 01:36:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 118-83-63-15.htoj.j-cnet.jp (118-83-63-15.htoj.j-cnet.jp [118.83.63.15]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D11333A68DC; Sat, 21 Mar 2009 01:36:04 -0700 (PDT) From: "Diego Castillo" To: "Lula Cleveland" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 04:36:51 -0500 Subject: The affordable watch alternative Hello Lina Winter is the time to get Omega watch, and the only place to get top notch watches that look and perform exactly like the originals is http://www.yolareqiw.cn The best news is that in March you can buy two watches and get an extra 15% off your purchase! http://www.yolareqiw.cn Our Omega have Weights/feels and looks exactly same as original. Sincerely, Mr Porter From matthew.meier@ch2m.com Sat Mar 21 03:02:31 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE2A73A682B; Sat, 21 Mar 2009 03:02:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -33.102 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-33.102 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_95=3, HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP=1.398, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 SYAdmlbVsGGP; Sat, 21 Mar 2009 03:02:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cable-static-11-103.rsnweb.ch (cable-static-11-103.rsnweb.ch [88.84.11.103]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 586D93A69C2; Sat, 21 Mar 2009 03:02:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 32.17.162.0 by 68.16.159.97; Sat, 21 Mar 2009 11:57:14 +0100 Message-ID: From: "Reva Mcgrath" To: "Berta Frederick" Subject: Patek Phillipe watch models from 2009! Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 06:03:14 -0500 Hello Nikki Looking for a Chopard watch that no one can tell from the original? You're in luck, because we have the best copies http://www.lapozonat.cn From p-taisho@k-sn.co.jp Sat Mar 21 03:18:12 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 408B83A6A71; Sat, 21 Mar 2009 03:18:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -78.094 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-78.094 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_SUB_MEDS=1.666, SARE_URI_BARGAIN=0.634, SUBJECT_FUZZY_MEDS=3.799, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 F0Eb-h7JBY5k; Sat, 21 Mar 2009 03:18:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cpc3-cwma1-0-0-cust235.swan.cable.ntl.com (cpc3-cwma1-0-0-cust235.swan.cable.ntl.com [81.96.200.236]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5A3023A69FD; Sat, 21 Mar 2009 03:17:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 96.5.250.75 by smtp.86.20.105.171; Sat, 21 Mar 2009 16:10:30 +0500 Message-ID: <0853ko630FPNUtools-team@ietf.org> Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 06:17:30 -0500 From: "Monte John" To: "Debra Griffith" Subject: Low cost meds inside Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Hello, Times are hard, we All know that. I would like to know if you are interested in receiving offers of medications in bargain prices? If yes then please send e-mail stating that you're interested like "Yes I'm interested" to: bargainoffers@ymail.com (e-mail address provided in previous e-mail message: "verifiedmeds@yahoo.co.uk" is wrong) We have unbeatable prices and unbeatable quality of our meds. Just let us know. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sat Mar 21 15:51:11 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F30BD3A6B10 for ; Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:51:10 -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 ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rPmRsGOemQSX for ; Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:51:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA6233A69C0 for ; Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:51:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Ll9wy-000BFe-V8 for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Sat, 21 Mar 2009 22:45:56 +0000 Received: from [2001:13c7:7001:4000::3] (helo=mail.lacnic.net.uy) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Ll9wq-000BDL-RS for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Mar 2009 22:45:53 +0000 Received: from [IPv6:2001:df8::64:216:cbff:fe98:665f] (unknown [IPv6:2001:df8:0:64:216:cbff:fe98:665f]) by mail.lacnic.net.uy (Postfix) with ESMTP id 205FF30841C; Sat, 21 Mar 2009 19:45:38 -0300 (UYT) Cc: v6ops WG Message-Id: <31F35FF8-5338-4DA5-8631-96D7575091FD@lacnic.net> From: Roque Gagliano To: Nathan Ward In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Apple-Mail-9--477188236" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: I-D Action:draft-nward-6to4-qualification-00.txt Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:45:32 -0700 References: <20090303113001.36E1E3A6BFF@core3.amsl.com> <14E2E072-54AA-4743-9736-9AFE3A379AF1@daork.net> X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail d55 (v55, Leopard) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-SpamCheck: X-LACNIC.uy-MailScanner-From: roque@lacnic.net Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --Apple-Mail-9--477188236 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-8--477188316 --Apple-Mail-8--477188316 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Nathan for the TBD1 IPv4 address please remember that there is a proposal to create a special registry in IANA in: draft-iana-special-ipv4-registry-01.txt you could refer to this. r. On Mar 20, 2009, at 12:09 PM, Nathan Ward wrote: > A version -01 is available from http://don.braintrust.co.nz/~nward/draft-nward-6to4-qualification-01.txt > with the following changes: > > - Explanation around what symmetric and asymmetric means in this > context, and what they are for. > - Added a section discussing where this mechanism is appropriate. > I'm open to better names for this section, the current one seems > weird. > - Added a reference to RFC3056 in the first mention of 192.88.99.1 > - Changed case for a MAY/may > - Changed some AAAA/BBBB etc. to non-hex characters (M, N, etc.) > - Added a reference to RFC3056 for /24 rationale - I also suggest a / > 32 for the IPv6 asymmetric prefix. Is there similar rationale I can > point to for this? > > I think that's it. > > I will submit properly when the tool becomes available again. > > > Thanks all for your comments. > > -- > Nathan Ward > --Apple-Mail-8--477188316 Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Nathan

for = the TBD1 IPv4 address please remember that there is a proposal to create = a special registry in IANA = in:
draft-iana-special-ipv4-registry-01.txt

=
you could refer to = this.

r.

On Mar = 20, 2009, at 12:09 PM, Nathan Ward wrote:

A = version -01 is available from http://don.braintrust.co.nz/~nward/draft-nward-6to4-qualification-= 01.txt with the following changes:

- Explanation around what = symmetric and asymmetric means in this context, and what they are = for.
- Added a section discussing where this mechanism is = appropriate. I'm open to better names for this section, the current one = seems weird.
- Added a reference to RFC3056 in the first mention of = 192.88.99.1
- Changed case for a MAY/may
- Changed some AAAA/BBBB = etc. to non-hex characters (M, N, etc.)
- Added a reference to = RFC3056 for /24 rationale - I also suggest a /32 for the IPv6 asymmetric = prefix. Is there similar rationale I can point to for this?

I = think that's it.

I will submit properly when the tool becomes = available again.


Thanks all for your = comments.

--
Nathan = Ward


= --Apple-Mail-8--477188316-- --Apple-Mail-9--477188236 content-type: application/pgp-signature; x-mac-type=70674453; name=PGP.sig content-description: This is a digitally signed message part content-disposition: inline; filename=PGP.sig content-transfer-encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAknFbg0ACgkQnk+WSgHpbO4A3ACdEa5ggCGxAzFuxMWwxO1X35pm 7VgAoIrGt5y+QkxXGPhTWr0g9bj3Qpfo =+v8j -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail-9--477188236-- From pantomimeclick.zusammenhang@bongfaschist.de Sun Mar 22 10:57:59 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BADD3A67F6; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 10:57:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -31.172 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-31.172 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 1n3+BA7-7OHU; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 10:57:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cpc3-bary1-0-0-cust226.cdif.cable.ntl.com (cpc3-bary1-0-0-cust226.cdif.cable.ntl.com [81.102.24.227]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3327828C127; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 10:57:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 96.181.67.79 by 56.4.120.190; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 22:58:34 +0400 Message-ID: From: "Merle Carney" To: "Nora Tidwell" Subject: Winter quality watches offer Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 13:58:34 -0500 Hello Nora I had never seen such beautiful and greatly-performing watches like the ones I found online at http://www.osecaoic.cn With top notch customer service and super warranty, we stand behind our watches. http://www.osecaoic.cn Our Tag Heuer have all appropriate markings, wordings and engravings same as orginal. Sincerely, Mr Tidwell From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sun Mar 22 11:17:23 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9D953A6856 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 11:17:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.454 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.454 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.959, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 ZBEqRN7VsJGk for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 11:17:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C52D13A67F6 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 11:17:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LlSAR-000PTs-KX for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 18:13:03 +0000 Received: from [131.107.115.215] (helo=smtp.microsoft.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LlSAM-000PS8-R9 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 18:13:01 +0000 Received: from TK5-EXHUB-C101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.18.48) by TK5-EXGWY-E802.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.168) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.99.4; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 11:12:57 -0700 Received: from tk5-exmlt-w601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.18.32) by TK5-EXHUB-C101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.18.48) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.2.99.4; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 11:12:58 -0700 Received: from NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([fe80::8de9:51a2:cd62:f122]) by tk5-exmlt-w601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.18.32]) with mapi; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 11:15:24 -0700 From: Dave Thaler To: "remi.denis-courmont@nokia.com" CC: IPv6 Operations Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 11:12:56 -0700 Subject: RE: I-D Action:draft-denis-v6ops-nat-addrsel-00.txt Thread-Topic: I-D Action:draft-denis-v6ops-nat-addrsel-00.txt Thread-Index: AcmkOfkLNi8D69mmT8qqJGgiOhZregG37jjg Message-ID: References: <20090218161504.A880C3A6A15@core3.amsl.com> <49BAF41A.70806@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <49BAF41A.70806@gmail.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="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: SSBqdXN0IHJlYWQgdGhpcyBkcmFmdCBhbmQgaGF2ZSB0aGUgc2FtZSB2aWV3IGFzIEJyaWFuLg0K VGhlIGN1cnJlbnQgYmVoYXZpb3IgaXMgYnkgZGVzaWduLg0KDQotRGF2ZQ0KDQo+IC0tLS0tT3Jp Z2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0tDQo+IEZyb206IG93bmVyLXY2b3BzQG9wcy5pZXRmLm9yZyBbbWFp bHRvOm93bmVyLXY2b3BzQG9wcy5pZXRmLm9yZ10gT24NCj4gQmVoYWxmIE9mIEJyaWFuIEUgQ2Fy cGVudGVyDQo+IFNlbnQ6IEZyaWRheSwgTWFyY2ggMTMsIDIwMDkgNTowMyBQTQ0KPiBUbzogcmVt aS5kZW5pcy1jb3VybW9udEBub2tpYS5jb20NCj4gQ2M6IElQdjYgT3BlcmF0aW9ucw0KPiBTdWJq ZWN0OiBSZTogSS1EIEFjdGlvbjpkcmFmdC1kZW5pcy12Nm9wcy1uYXQtYWRkcnNlbC0wMC50eHQN Cj4NCj4gUmVtaSwNCj4NCj4gSSBhbSBub3Qgc3VyZSBhYm91dCB0aGlzIHN0YXRlbWVudCBpbiB5 b3VyIGRyYWZ0Og0KPg0KPiA+ICAgIFRodXMsIHRoZSB0cmFuc2l0aW9uYWwgKElQdjYpIGFkZHJl c3Mgd2lsbCBiZSB1c2VkIGluc3RlYWQgb2YgdGhlDQo+ID4gICAgbmF0aXZlIChJUHY0KSBhZGRy ZXNzLCBldmVuIHRob3VnaCB0aGF0IHNob3VsZCBoYXZlIGJlZW4gYXZvaWRlZC4NCj4NCj4gQXMg SSByZWNhbGwsIHRoZSBpbnRlbnRpb24gd2FzIGFsd2F5cyB0aGF0IElQdjYgc2hvdWxkIGJlIHBy ZWZlcnJlZA0KPiB0byBJUHY0LCB3aGVuIGJvdGggYXJlIGF2YWlsYWJsZS4gVGhlIHN0YXRlbWVu dCB5b3UgcXVvdGUgZWFybGllcg0KPg0KPiA+ICAgIFtSRkMzNDg0XSBzdGF0ZXMgdGhhdCAidGhl IHVzZSBvZiB0cmFuc2l0aW9uYWwgYWRkcmVzc2VzIHdoZW4NCj4gbmF0aXZlDQo+ID4gICAgYWRk cmVzc2VzIGFyZSBhdmFpbGFibGUgW3Nob3VsZCBiZSBhdm9pZGVkXSIuDQo+DQo+IHdhcyBpbiBt eSBtZW1vcnkgaW50ZW5kZWQgdG8gcmVmZXIgdG8gSVB2NiB2ZXJzdXMgSVB2NiwgYW5kIG5vdCB0 bw0KPiBJUHY2IHZlcnN1cyBJUHY0Lg0KPg0KPiBPbiB0aGF0IHZpZXcsIHRoZSBjdXJyZW50IGJl aGF2aW91ciBpcyBub3QgYSBtaXN0YWtlLiBUaGUgbWlzdGFrZSBtYXkNCj4gYmUgZWxzZXdoZXJl OiBhIGJsYWNrIGhvbGUgaW4gdGhlIHRyYW5zaXRpb25hbCBJUHY2IGNvbm5lY3Rpdml0eS4NCj4N Cj4gWW91IHN1Z2dlc3Q6DQo+DQo+ID4gICAgU2V2ZXJhbCBvcGVyYXRpbmcgc3lzdGVtIHZlbmRv cnMgYXBwZWFyIHRvIHdvcmsgYXJvdW5kIHRoaXMgaXNzdWUNCj4gYnkNCj4gPiAgICBhc3NpZ25p bmcgYSBnbG9iYWwgc2NvcGUgdG8gSVB2NCBhZGRyZXNzLiAgVGh1cywgcnVsZSAyIGlzIG5vDQo+ IGxvbmdlcg0KPiA+ICAgIGRpc2NyaW1pbmF0aW5nIGFnYWluc3QgdGhlIElQdjQgYWRkcmVzcyBw YWlyLg0KPg0KPiBUcnVlLCBidXQgdGhhdCBpcyBhZ2FpbnN0IHRoZSBpbnRlbnRpb24gb2YgZGlz Y3JpbWluYXRpbmcgaW4gZmF2b3VyDQo+IG9mIElQdjYuIFNvIHdoaWxlIHNvbWUgdmVuZG9ycyBt YXkgaGF2ZSBjaG9zZW4gdGhpcyBhcHByb2FjaCwgaXQgaXNuJ3QNCj4gd2hhdCB3ZSB3YW50ZWQu DQo+DQo+IEkgZG9uJ3Qgc2VlIHdoeSB3ZSdkIGZpeCBhbiBvcGVyYXRpb25hbCBwcm9ibGVtIG9m IGJsYWNrIGhvbGVzDQo+IGJ5IGRpc2NyaW1pbmF0aW5nIGluIGZhdm91ciBvZiBJUHY0IE5BVC4g VGhhdCB3b3VsZCBqdXN0IHNlcnZlIHRvDQo+IHJlZHVjZSB0aGUgaW5jZW50aXZlIHRvIGZpeCB0 aGUgYmxhY2sgaG9sZXMuDQo+DQo+ID4gNi4gIElQdjYgQWRkcmVzcyBUcmFuc2xhdGlvbg0KPiA+ DQo+ID4gICAgVGhlIGltcGxpY2F0aW9ucyBvZiBJUHY2IEFkZHJlc3MgVHJhbnNsYXRpb24gYW5k IHByb3RvY29sDQo+IHRyYW5zbGF0aW9uDQo+ID4gICAgYXJlIGxlZnQgYmV5b25kIHRoZSBzY29w ZSBvZiB0aGlzIGRvY3VtZW50LiAgSG93ZXZlciwgaXQgY2FuIG9ubHkNCj4gYmUNCj4gPiAgICBy ZWNvbW1lbmRlZCB0aGF0IFJGQzM0ODQgYmUgdGFrZW4gaW50byBhY2NvdW50IHdoZW4gZGVzaWdu aW5nIHN1Y2gNCj4gPiAgICB0cmFuc2xhdGlvbiBzeXN0ZW1zLg0KPg0KPiBTaW5jZSBVTEFzIGFy ZSBkZWZpbmVkIHRvIGhhdmUgZ2xvYmFsIHNjb3BlLCBJIHRoaW5rIHRoZXJlIHdpbGwNCj4gYmUg bm8gcHJvYmxlbS4NCj4NCj4gICAgICBCcmlhbg0KPg0KDQo= From smugism@ernet.in Sun Mar 22 16:43:30 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D0163A67AD; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:43:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -22.604 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-22.604 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_60=1, DNS_FROM_RFC_DSN=1.495, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 QNqZjBxclLli; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:43:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cpc2-mfld11-0-0-cust278.nott.cable.ntl.com (cpc2-mfld11-0-0-cust278.nott.cable.ntl.com [86.15.197.23]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A70343A6805; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:43:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Rep will save you thousands Message-ID: From: "Leigh Salazar" Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit To: "Albert Daly" Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 19:44:11 -0500 Hello Annie Looking for a Cartier watch that no one can tell from the original? You're in luck, because we have the best copies http://www.osaocaoa.cn Get two deeply discounted watches and take an extra 15% discount. http://www.osaocaoa.cn Our Cartier have all appropriate markings, wordings and engravings same as orginal. Sincerely, Mr Logan From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sun Mar 22 17:27:11 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F73A3A69A3 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 17:27:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.531 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.531 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.036, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 WD--jWhULmFi for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 17:27:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65CEE3A6908 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 17:27:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LlXvE-000KKa-IA for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 00:21:44 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.71] (helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LlXv6-000KJf-2V for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 00:21:38 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,404,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="144943453" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Mar 2009 00:21:33 +0000 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2N0LXuo024803 for ; Sun, 22 Mar 2009 17:21:33 -0700 Received: from dhcp-41cd.meeting.ietf.org (sjc-vpn7-1755.cisco.com [10.21.150.219]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2N0LMqd014672 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 00:21:32 GMT Message-Id: <4B9226E3-6AE4-447D-8640-421DC5041C98@cisco.com> From: Fred Baker To: IPv6 Operations Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Fwd: Audio Streams for IETF 74 in San Francisco Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 15:41:57 -0700 References: <4F7CD90E-B212-4014-BF70-7FB3DCEA22D1@verilan.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1542; t=1237767693; x=1238631693; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20 |Subject:=20Fwd=3A=20Audio=20Streams=20for=20IETF=2074=20in =20San=20Francisco |Sender:=20; bh=V6wnyY0EhzD5sef1nWvyq7PYKMCy6zMaztwN6dEMRbE=; b=vaDd7k11w8l3ZQuPqrH1eAdCEiPtLeLKQedh8W8bxLaZt5VcAX+iOCu0P8 OocpZcNEKg7806yq/qbr+wc7elLdb4yYqi/sp6x0nfTw2iVcDdgSnWh3w8A8 hbYZGJiOUW; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: The meeting will be in Imperial A Monday and Imperial B on Friday. Begin forwarded message: > From: Morgan Sackett > Date: March 21, 2009 3:55:29 PM PDT > To: ietf@ietf.org > Subject: Audio Streams for IETF 74 in San Francisco > > There will be MP3 audio streams of the meetings happening in the > breakout rooms. Specifically these are > > Continental 1&2 > Continental 3 > Continental 4 > Continental 5 > Continental 6 > Imperial A > Imperial B > Franciscan A > > Please refer to the online agenda at http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/ > 74/ to find a link to the stream for each session. > > If there are concerns about the audio streams, there are a few ways > to get our attention. Via email either audio@meeting.ietf.org, or noc@meeting.ietf.org > . Via XMPP at noc@jabber.ietf.org. > > Morgan Sackett > VP of Engineering > > VeriLAN Event Services, Inc. > 215 SE Morrison Street > Portland, OR 97214 > > Tel: 503 907-1415 > Fax: 503 224-8833 > > msackett@verilan.com > www.verilan.com > > > This e-mail contains proprietary information and may be > confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, > you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or > copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you received this > message in error, please delete it immediately. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf From rokmc776aa@nate.com Mon Mar 23 02:04:04 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A7F93A6A0E; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 02:04:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -22.043 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-22.043 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_80=2, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 vfTN3shqQpY1; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 02:04:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 89-138-129-14.bb.netvision.net.il (89-138-129-14.bb.netvision.net.il [89.138.129.14]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id BFBB43A69EC; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 02:03:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Rep will save you thousands Message-ID: From: "Emery Vance" Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit To: "Gene Vernon" Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 05:04:31 -0500 Hello Eugenia Looking for a Vacheron Constantin? How about getting two, one for you and one for your spouse? http://www.osceamoi.cn The best news is that in March you can buy two watches and get an extra 15% off your purchase! http://www.osceamoi.cn Our Vacheron Constantin have Weights/feels and looks exactly same as original. Sincerely, Mr Santana From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 23 10:26:05 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3862C3A6C35 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:26:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.547 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.547 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.052, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 QCocYUhjGXUh for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:26:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AF773A6C2B for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:26:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LlnrE-0009Rq-6E for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:22:40 +0000 Received: from [17.254.13.22] (helo=mail-out3.apple.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Llnr9-0009Qe-Nw for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:22:37 +0000 Received: from relay14.apple.com (relay14.apple.com [17.128.113.52]) by mail-out3.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD1DB5851C5F for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:22:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay14.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay14.apple.com (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with ESMTP id A627828085 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:22:34 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 11807134-a6857bb000000ff0-d9-49c7c55ae51a Received: from [17.151.98.151] (unknown [17.151.98.151]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay14.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id 84D6A28088 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:22:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <403E4E3E-A266-43E5-AFEC-C75F23DF2D8F@apple.com> From: james woodyatt To: IPv6 Operations In-Reply-To: <20090323172020.408793A6C32@core3.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:22:33 -0700 References: <20090323172020.408793A6C32@core3.amsl.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Mar 23, 2009, at 10:20, IETF I-D Submission Tool wrote: > > A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04.txt > has been successfuly submitted by James Woodyatt and posted to the > IETF repository. This draft is a very minor update to make the references current and update the IPR boilerplate. -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, communications engineering From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 23 10:31:16 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01CFE3A6C48 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:31:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.086 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.086 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.514, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 GYq7uMTPqMW3 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:31:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 212C328C18D for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:31:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LlnzI-0009zp-OY for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:31:00 +0000 Received: from [2001:1890:1112:1::20] (helo=mail.ietf.org) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LlnzA-0009yx-Pd for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:30:56 +0000 Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 62AFB3A6C28; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:30:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04.txt Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20090323173001.62AFB3A6C28@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:30:01 -0700 (PDT) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: --NextPart 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 : Recommended Simple Security Capabilities in Customer Premises Equipment for Providing Residential IPv6 Internet Service Author(s) : J. Woodyatt Filename : draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04.txt Pages : 31 Date : 2009-03-23 This document makes specific recommendations to the makers of devices that provide "simple security" capabilities at the perimeter of local-area IPv6 networks in Internet-enabled homes and small offices. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2009-03-23102020.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 23 10:58:58 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27CC33A6C09 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:58:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.021 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.021 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.526, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 r8yUPlccuNM5 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:58:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07E093A6BFD for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:58:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LloPn-000C6O-IH for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:58:23 +0000 Received: from [17.254.13.23] (helo=mail-out4.apple.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LloPj-000C5y-8I for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:58:21 +0000 Received: from relay13.apple.com (relay13.apple.com [17.128.113.29]) by mail-out4.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 477A35B03F11 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:58:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay13.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay13.apple.com (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with ESMTP id 2E68928085 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:58:18 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 1180711d-a8024bb000000ff0-5c-49c7cdb98aab Received: from [17.151.98.151] (unknown [17.151.98.151]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay13.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id F423328092 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:58:17 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> From: james woodyatt To: IPv6 Operations Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:58:17 -0700 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: everyone-- I see this topic came up once before, but I have a different comment. ----- Section 5 "Basic IPv6 Provisioning" says: > The CPE Router MUST support at least one of two WAN interface > models, one of which will be active on the CPE Router at any given > time. p1. If the CPE router only supports one of the two, then only one will be active at any given time. p2. If I were running an ISP, I'd be very suspicious of this requirement on CPE router vendors that they MUST support "at least one of two" and not both WAN interface models. Fortunately, I'm on the other side of that fence, so I'm very pleased to see that I can refuse to support the Unnumbered Model and still comply with Best Current Practice. p3. I'm deeply confused about how the default route is communicated to the CPE router over its WAN link from the service provider in the Unnumbered Model. ----- Section 5.4 "Process RAs" Do these include RFC 4191 More Specific Route advertisements? Yay! That will make the rogue RA problem a whole lot more fun. ----- I'm still going through the draft. Sorry for my slow progress. Sigh. -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, communications engineering From wilma@beijen.nl Mon Mar 23 11:17:40 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B29A63A6B18; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:17:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -14.406 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.406 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_DYNAMIC=1.144, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 T-OMJRH3bW1A; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:17:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 89-186-159-164.dynamic.primacom.net (89-186-159-164.dynamic.primacom.net [89.186.159.164]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 60F1C3A6C32; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:17:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 185.195.234.164 by 128.190.180.118; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:13:21 +0300 Message-ID: To: "Elvira Stiles" From: "Dominique Stanton" Subject: Save thousands... no one will know Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:18:21 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Hello Jimmy If you've waited to get your Gucci watch, this is the right time to go for it. http://www.osaooai.cn Get two deeply discounted watches and take an extra 15% discount. http://www.osaooai.cn Our Gucci have all appropriate markings, wordings and engravings same as orginal. Sincerely, Mr Honeycutt From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 23 11:26:44 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E098B3A682D for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:26:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.439 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.439 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.056, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 5pnV4800MXOd for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:26:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9EEC3A6B18 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 11:26:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Llopn-000EQD-LV for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:25:15 +0000 Received: from [64.102.122.148] (helo=rtp-iport-1.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Llope-000EO9-GT for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:25:12 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,409,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="40181237" Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Mar 2009 18:25:05 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2NIP5Uo027561; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:25:05 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2NIP5qh001895; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:25:05 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.40]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:25:05 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:25:03 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: Acmr4UHXddL5dQ06Ra6K5DzowEdXFAAAHTWw References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" To: "james woodyatt" , "IPv6 Operations" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Mar 2009 18:25:05.0287 (UTC) FILETIME=[B024E170:01C9ABE4] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2244; t=1237832705; x=1238696705; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20comm ents |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22james=20woodyatt=22=20,=20=22IPv6= 20Operations=22=20; bh=JyjjrDhSL8eN47vfKWh+XiIG93vUoZbdBb1fKHC5yvg=; b=CoYxNa0FvfunX2uN1KOoPM3Ds8PbC1D5OLqU9iZzwr7KPf2B9hhEP7n67o IqBrIXtO/rmV2IVW6d6f6NmhKgk9oBymRAH68I50RhtpFwC6xGKVC2bEyIuo ZhhUqpZOzP; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=shemant@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: In line below between and . Section 5 "Basic IPv6 Provisioning" says: > The CPE Router MUST support at least one of two WAN interface =20 > models, one of which will be active on the CPE Router at any given =20 > time. p1. If the CPE router only supports one of the two, then only one will =20 be active at any given time. p2. If I were running an ISP, I'd be very suspicious of this =20 requirement on CPE router vendors that they MUST support "at least one =20 of two" and not both WAN interface models. Fortunately, I'm on the =20 other side of that fence, so I'm very pleased to see that I can refuse =20 to support the Unnumbered Model and still comply with Best Current =20 Practice. This is exactly what the CableLabs specified eRouter does. p3. I'm deeply confused about how the default route is communicated to =20 the CPE router over its WAN link from the service provider in the =20 Unnumbered Model. Numbered or Unnumbered models aside, the CPE Rtr receives an RA from the neighboring first hop SP router. CPE Rtr receives the RA and knows this is the IPv6 default router. ----- Section 5.4 "Process RAs" Do these include RFC 4191 More Specific Route advertisements? Yay! =20 That will make the rogue RA problem a whole lot more fun. This section clearly discusses only the direction where an RA comes to the CPE Rtr from the SP router to the home. For a cable and DSL network the SP to the cable modem or DSL modem link is cable RF transport or DSL telco network. Such networks are deemed very secure. A Rogue RA is not expected in this direction. Outside of this section of our document, we can totally agree that a rouge RA may be sent from say, a Windows or MAC personal computer attached to the CPE Rtr in a direction upstream from the CPE Rtr to the SP network. A CPE Rtr has to block any RA from the home to the SP network. =20 ----- I'm still going through the draft. Sorry for my slow progress. Sigh. No worries. Comments are welcome any time. Hemant & Wes -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, communications engineering From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 23 12:25:35 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 020BF3A6918 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:25:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.846 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.846 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.351, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 nWGHePuKr4Md for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:25:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23A9A3A6B32 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:25:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Llpl9-000Jjj-Ab for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:24:31 +0000 Received: from [17.254.13.22] (helo=mail-out3.apple.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Llpl4-000JjL-EV for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:24:28 +0000 Received: from relay11.apple.com (relay11.apple.com [17.128.113.48]) by mail-out3.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C69C5856E60 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:24:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay11.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay11.apple.com (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with ESMTP id E8D1F2809D for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:24:25 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 11807130-ac899bb000000fcd-2f-49c7e1e9cc9b Received: from [17.151.86.75] (unknown [17.151.86.75]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay11.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id 9480E28092 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:24:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <0DD150BF-77BC-4527-BD35-9202F94496E0@apple.com> From: james woodyatt To: IPv6 Operations In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:24:24 -0700 References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Mar 23, 2009, at 11:25, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote: > > > Numbered or Unnumbered models aside, the CPE Rtr receives an RA from > the > neighboring first hop SP router. CPE Rtr receives the RA and knows > this > is the IPv6 default router. > I don't see in the Unnumbered Model where the CPE is required to send any RS, nor do I think it's safe to assume that CPE routers will ever receive any unsolicited multicast RA announcements. > ----- > Section 5.4 "Process RAs" > > Do these include RFC 4191 More Specific Route advertisements? Yay! > That will make the rogue RA problem a whole lot more fun. > > > > This section clearly discusses only the direction where an RA comes to > the CPE Rtr from the SP router to the home. For a cable and DSL > network > the SP to the cable modem or DSL modem link is cable RF transport or > DSL > telco network. Such networks are deemed very secure. A Rogue RA is > not > expected in this direction. Be careful here. RFC4191 MoreSpecificRoute messages, properly formed, are neither rogue nor accidental. So. Are CPE routers required to process RFC4191 MoreSpecificRoute options, or are they required to ignore them? Or does this draft even want to take a position? -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, communications engineering From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 23 12:25:45 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 023DB3A6C82 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:25:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.758 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.758 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.263, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 Rd5GEOarBAS9 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:25:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 212163A6918 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:25:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LlpmG-000JpC-1o for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:25:40 +0000 Received: from [17.254.13.23] (helo=mail-out4.apple.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LlpmB-000Jo7-Rz for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 19:25:37 +0000 Received: from relay13.apple.com (relay13.apple.com [17.128.113.29]) by mail-out4.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8741C5B07A13 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:25:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay13.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay13.apple.com (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with ESMTP id 70C0E28098 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:25:35 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 1180711d-a6821bb000000ff0-dd-49c7e22f87e4 Received: from [17.151.86.75] (unknown [17.151.86.75]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay13.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id 46EDE28088 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:25:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: james woodyatt To: IPv6 Operations In-Reply-To: <403E4E3E-A266-43E5-AFEC-C75F23DF2D8F@apple.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:25:34 -0700 References: <20090323172020.408793A6C32@core3.amsl.com> <403E4E3E-A266-43E5-AFEC-C75F23DF2D8F@apple.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Mar 23, 2009, at 10:22, james woodyatt wrote: > On Mar 23, 2009, at 10:20, IETF I-D Submission Tool wrote: >> >> A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04.txt >> has been successfuly submitted by James Woodyatt and posted to the >> IETF repository. > > This draft is a very minor update to make the references current and > update the IPR boilerplate. One of my coworkers, Johnny Zweig, has already found a typographical error in Section 3.1, i.e. s/that/than/ in R2. -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, communications engineering From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 23 14:11:29 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3A883A6C97 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:11:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.445 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.445 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 Y+6qhjt1bNNc for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:11:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D71B3A6C94 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:11:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LlrNo-0001op-QM for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:08:32 +0000 Received: from [64.102.122.149] (helo=rtp-iport-2.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LlrNj-0001n5-Fx for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:08:30 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,410,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="40165143" Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Mar 2009 21:08:25 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2NL8PHs025841; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:08:25 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2NL8OsG008653; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:08:25 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.40]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:08:25 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:08:14 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <0DD150BF-77BC-4527-BD35-9202F94496E0@apple.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: Acmr7WNrgXPMfzr0Q0a2acrz5GIxTQACIfeg References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <0DD150BF-77BC-4527-BD35-9202F94496E0@apple.com> From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" To: "james woodyatt" , "IPv6 Operations" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Mar 2009 21:08:25.0005 (UTC) FILETIME=[813B2DD0:01C9ABFB] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1739; t=1237842505; x=1238706505; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20comm ents |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22james=20woodyatt=22=20,=20=22IPv6= 20Operations=22=20; bh=z2GlA9C2Sym2px/bqNJr0KNB1naRhO3cTvRkmhRkdPI=; b=qeKEVQCpM7PsqLQPsgqaNU/5KjIJaH+RBvct+FGS+qCpUplfHaiV/WUl1z VuU3M4eXd9eJphbvYKz7UHbw8QfP72zyNTnxU39Z0f1cGCJDm/n2iqXeH2bj rOqYWTad/m; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=shemant@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: >I don't see in the Unnumbered Model where the CPE is required to send =20 >any RS, nor do I think it's safe to assume that CPE routers will ever =20 >receive any unsolicited multicast RA announcements. When a network interface on any router inits itself and performs any "address acquisition", the network interface of the router is acting as a host. According to RFC 4861, section 4.1, the text says that hosts send RS to solicit an RA quickly. Even in the Unnumbered model, the CPE Router will use a LAN interface or Loopback interface IPV6 address to source packets - this is equivalent to the WAN interface "acquiring" an address. However, it is loose. We can certainly mandate in the Unnumbered section that the WAN interface MUST send an RS.=20 >Be careful here. RFC4191 MoreSpecificRoute messages, properly formed, >are neither rogue nor accidental. >So. Are CPE routers required to process RFC4191 MoreSpecificRoute =20 >options, or are they required to ignore them? Or does this draft even >want to take a position? This draft takes the position taken by RFC 4861 which in section 4.2 says [Future versions of this protocol may define new option types. Receivers MUST silently ignore any options they do not recognize and continue processing the message.] Cable CMTS and DSLAM nodes at the SP edge have no need to be multi-homed which is one reason to consider RFC 4191. Also if you look at the "IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis", this document does NOT mention RFC 4191 and hence so we won't either. Is there a compelling reason for the CPE Rtr to support RFC 4191? If there is, you have to take it up first with the "IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis" folks. Hemant From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 23 14:23:31 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 756BB3A6887 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:23:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.705 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.705 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.210, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 bcYtwNmUtBCn for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:23:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A73C3A690E for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:23:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Llrc3-0002yn-2w for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:23:15 +0000 Received: from [17.254.13.23] (helo=mail-out4.apple.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Llrbx-0002yC-Bo for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:23:12 +0000 Received: from relay10.apple.com (relay10.apple.com [17.128.113.47]) by mail-out4.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED6705B0C79B for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:23:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay10.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay10.apple.com (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with ESMTP id DA0E228050 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:23:08 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 1180712f-a996cbb0000012d3-87-49c7fdbc3889 Received: from [17.151.121.94] (unknown [17.151.121.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay10.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id B380228054 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:23:08 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <95F8ED8E-261B-437C-8063-223D345C364B@apple.com> From: james woodyatt To: IPv6 Operations In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:23:07 -0700 References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <0DD150BF-77BC-4527-BD35-9202F94496E0@apple.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Mar 23, 2009, at 14:08, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote: > We can certainly mandate in the Unnumbered section that the WAN > interface MUST send an RS. I think that might help clarify the issue. > This draft takes the position taken by RFC 4861 which in section 4.2 > says [Future versions of this protocol may define new option types. > Receivers MUST silently ignore any options they do not recognize > and continue processing the message.] Does RFC 4191 not predate RFC 4861? Yes, I realize that RFC 4191 was not categorized as an update of RFC 2461, the predecessor of RFC 4861, but it's really not fair to treat a standards-track RFC published over three years ago as a "future" specification. If the draft doesn't want to take a position on whether CPE routers MUST, SHOULD NOT, MAY or MAY NOT process RFC 4191 More Specific Route options, then I think it would help to be explicit about it. -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, communications engineering From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 23 14:42:13 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3964F3A6A9D for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:42:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.45 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.045, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 jIQtXUzQO0-3 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:42:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BD613A69A9 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:42:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LlrtX-0004cr-NK for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:41:19 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.70] (helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LlrtS-0004cS-T4 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:41:17 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,410,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="160349821" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Mar 2009 21:41:14 +0000 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2NLfECC021838; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:41:14 -0700 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2NLfEwn029212; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:41:14 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.40]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:41:13 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:41:12 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <95F8ED8E-261B-437C-8063-223D345C364B@apple.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: Acmr/eSe75QQPaWBS8+HEQ5ZVCUoFgAAIeXA References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <0DD150BF-77BC-4527-BD35-9202F94496E0@apple.com> <95F8ED8E-261B-437C-8063-223D345C364B@apple.com> From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" To: "james woodyatt" , "IPv6 Operations" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Mar 2009 21:41:13.0630 (UTC) FILETIME=[169F83E0:01C9AC00] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1193; t=1237844474; x=1238708474; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20comm ents |Sender:=20; bh=LrLGF3+19THNBaNfeaGDGC6+hf1w5cU0rN6Ofjg+q8w=; b=OlmVt3v5sJPdUat3yzTFCLgVABTeGRDHqyxkYEO2UPA0Hm0a+xqpm/oazM +9N4kK8+3dwjQAHgVTtIr+HuqA3sQVC6B6UTYIsVXG/twXFouVo0OWqZPG2G 76TzRok5Lb; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=shemant@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: >I think that might help clarify the issue. Thank you for bringing up this point. We will clarify the RS in the Unnumbered model in the next revision of the draft. >Does RFC 4191 not predate RFC 4861? Yes, I realize that RFC 4191 was =20 >not categorized as an update of RFC 2461, the predecessor of RFC 4861, >but it's really not fair to treat a standards-track RFC published over >three years ago as a "future" specification. >If the draft doesn't want to take a position on whether CPE routers =20 >MUST, SHOULD NOT, MAY or MAY NOT process RFC 4191 More Specific Route =20 >options, then I think it would help to be explicit about it. We are working off of the "IPv6 Node Requirements RFC 4294-bis" and won't go against this document. If a gotcha is found, we will have RFC 4294-bis changed and then apply the change to the CPE Rtr. Since RFC 4294-bis does not mention RFC 4191, our draft's position is crystal clear in this regard. Our draft will follow RFC 4861 because that is what RFC 4294-bis goes by. Again, unless something is critically needed from RFC 4191 to be mandated for the CPE Rtr, we may close this discussion.=20 Thanks, Hemant From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 23 14:47:09 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1542E28C14F for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:47:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.547 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.547 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.052, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 YFhrKYBbkw23 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:47:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2640728C121 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:47:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LlrzH-00054Q-O5 for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:47:15 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.72] (helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LlrzD-000544-1h for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:47:13 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,410,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="145794911" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 23 Mar 2009 21:47:10 +0000 Received: from sj-core-3.cisco.com (sj-core-3.cisco.com [171.68.223.137]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2NLlAEw032600; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:47:10 -0700 Received: from dhcp-41cd.meeting.ietf.org (sjc-vpn6-723.cisco.com [10.21.122.211]) by sj-core-3.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2NLlA7X001971; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:47:10 GMT Cc: IPv6 Operations Message-Id: <215BF73C-7C0D-4DAF-B399-7E812A8FB4A2@cisco.com> From: Fred Baker To: james woodyatt In-Reply-To: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:47:10 -0700 References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=561; t=1237844830; x=1238708830; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20comm ents |Sender:=20; bh=lO0zEyQ6ek6FCKPxQjLWBkkh3dqqqnlFZeF2fJoIjdY=; b=no80F7DYv0d8nOmeNcztWj2OXYwmMKp4VBCkovTUsnemOID/8u4dOEy/DZ fVTeTSHkJK0Rq9zT1hEO80RDhcTWM2BLtxe/A66J8602sd9JK8Y1mWifNvpJ 4/Wo/Pm1SP; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Mar 23, 2009, at 10:58 AM, james woodyatt wrote: > p2. If I were running an ISP, I'd be very suspicious of this > requirement on CPE router vendors that they MUST support "at least > one of two" and not both WAN interface models. Fortunately, I'm on > the other side of that fence, so I'm very pleased to see that I can > refuse to support the Unnumbered Model and still comply with Best > Current Practice. That wasn't how I interpreted it. It said that you need to support both, as some ISPs will go one way and some the other. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 23 15:14:27 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32D5F3A6831 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:14:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.796 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.301, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 yzDdTQFAEjD4 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:14:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D9CF3A67F5 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:14:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LlsNr-0006xM-J8 for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:12:39 +0000 Received: from [17.254.13.22] (helo=mail-out3.apple.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LlsNl-0006vk-Ej for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:12:37 +0000 Received: from relay14.apple.com (relay14.apple.com [17.128.113.52]) by mail-out3.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84D5D585D6CD for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:12:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay14.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay14.apple.com (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with ESMTP id 7245328085 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:12:32 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 11807134-a4853bb000000ff0-fe-49c80950a14d Received: from [17.151.121.94] (unknown [17.151.121.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay14.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id 567602802F for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:12:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <943C3A80-979F-4289-BA20-C17D20861111@apple.com> From: james woodyatt To: IPv6 Operations In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:12:31 -0700 References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <0DD150BF-77BC-4527-BD35-9202F94496E0@apple.com> <95F8ED8E-261B-437C-8063-223D345C364B@apple.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Mar 23, 2009, at 14:41, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote: > > ...unless something is critically needed from RFC 4191 to be > mandated for the CPE Rtr, we may close this > discussion. I want the draft amended to recognize explicitly that CPE routers MAY transmit and receive RFC 4191 More Explicit Route messages on their WAN link. -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, communications engineering From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 23 15:29:01 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC0183A69DB for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:29:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.758 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.758 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.263, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 wZhoCFA56SBj for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:29:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C21DF3A69C3 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:29:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LlsdN-0007zD-0I for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:28:41 +0000 Received: from [17.254.13.23] (helo=mail-out4.apple.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LlsdI-0007yP-GE for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:28:38 +0000 Received: from relay13.apple.com (relay13.apple.com [17.128.113.29]) by mail-out4.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 725695B0EE05 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:28:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay13.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay13.apple.com (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with ESMTP id 48D7B2808C for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:28:35 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 1180711d-ab02abb000000ff0-7d-49c80d1395d1 Received: from [17.151.121.94] (unknown [17.151.121.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay13.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id 1E7A7280A5 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:28:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: james woodyatt To: IPv6 Operations In-Reply-To: <215BF73C-7C0D-4DAF-B399-7E812A8FB4A2@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:28:33 -0700 References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <215BF73C-7C0D-4DAF-B399-7E812A8FB4A2@cisco.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Mar 23, 2009, at 14:47, Fred Baker wrote: > On Mar 23, 2009, at 10:58 AM, james woodyatt wrote: >> >> p2. If I were running an ISP, I'd be very suspicious of this >> requirement on CPE router vendors that they MUST support "at least >> one of two" and not both WAN interface models. Fortunately, I'm on >> the other side of that fence, so I'm very pleased to see that I can >> refuse to support the Unnumbered Model and still comply with Best >> Current Practice. > > That wasn't how I interpreted it. It said that you need to support > both, as some ISPs will go one way and some the other. Then I think this recommendation should be worded differently. It could better describe this by using language that makes sense from the perspective of CPE router developers, e.g.: Service providers require CPE routers to support at least one of two WAN interface models, of which only one MUST be active on the CPE router at any given time. I think that would more clearly describe Fred's interpretation of the language I'm seeing in the existing draft. As the draft stands, I don't see any recommendation that CPE routers support both of the two WAN interface models, only a recommendation to support "at least one" of them. -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, communications engineering From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 23 15:58:02 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 158083A6BF1 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:58:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.127 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.127 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 F3Z3NVMbP6wU for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:58:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E9F43A6ADE for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:58:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Llt5B-000APf-RW for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:57:25 +0000 Received: from [209.85.220.162] (helo=mail-fx0-f162.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Llt56-000AOg-3h for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:57:23 +0000 Received: by fxm6 with SMTP id 6so2022807fxm.41 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:57:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+X7lts0uoFuXHfMwhfH7ZiNncc1i8mLhCOlbZQgAqWs=; b=BRNQrLRbc9nj4fYIy08r8Nnc+PvggHUuLeabBgMV2LJsXZ1R/+WARwGbKpO0OmSksj 25QV9QxXHUL1CEckhe5j2UzotMxVwnSHjhP7TF1hYI6dHERDt78CyGEz2Cga0HZXpoTt JtiM6GGLI0kr8GSp+d/m2Inu/ZeC3GOWYYvKE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=aLbCubURArOW5z+xXWxHay3O00eo09FgJZwlBbZAoZvA647lZ+VtIOYMcyk8hXnydg osgQYuHntmnRijzqgtZGby9YwLSzwpiclB48r0DxgKtyRXI5h3sDz8PC/Z7zRXEP6qOu DMi4MaDSqh+G5ayN1XRMmVOFjLkVD5GiAMMMk= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.103.137.12 with SMTP id p12mr3014974mun.94.1237849039092; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:57:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <943C3A80-979F-4289-BA20-C17D20861111@apple.com> References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <0DD150BF-77BC-4527-BD35-9202F94496E0@apple.com> <95F8ED8E-261B-437C-8063-223D345C364B@apple.com> <943C3A80-979F-4289-BA20-C17D20861111@apple.com> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:57:19 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: cd647abbec993329 Message-ID: <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments From: Ole Troan To: james woodyatt Cc: IPv6 Operations Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 3:12 PM, james woodyatt wrote: > On Mar 23, 2009, at 14:41, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote: >> >> ...unless something is critically needed from RFC 4191 to be mandated for >> the CPE Rtr, we may close this >> discussion. > > I want the draft amended to recognize explicitly that CPE routers MAY > transmit and receive RFC 4191 More Explicit Route messages on their WAN > link. and turning ND into a routing protocol? Ole From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 23 16:02:18 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 302763A6C46 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:02:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.729 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.729 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.234, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 RqVQv0mH5U6c for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:02:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5134E3A6C32 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:02:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LltAF-000Auo-Gj for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 23:02:39 +0000 Received: from [17.254.13.23] (helo=mail-out4.apple.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LltA9-000AtA-Qp for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 23:02:36 +0000 Received: from relay13.apple.com (relay13.apple.com [17.128.113.29]) by mail-out4.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D3F75B10199 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:02:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay13.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay13.apple.com (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with ESMTP id CDF2528088 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:02:32 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 1180711d-a7022bb000000ff0-46-49c815081591 Received: from [17.151.121.94] (unknown [17.151.121.94]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay13.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id 315DF28085 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:02:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <6161A3E1-DCD1-467F-9AD5-0A15821413A2@apple.com> From: james woodyatt To: IPv6 Operations In-Reply-To: <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:02:15 -0700 References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <0DD150BF-77BC-4527-BD35-9202F94496E0@apple.com> <95F8ED8E-261B-437C-8063-223D345C364B@apple.com> <943C3A80-979F-4289-BA20-C17D20861111@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Mar 23, 2009, at 15:57, Ole Troan wrote: > > ...and turning ND into a routing protocol? From Section 1 of RFC 4191: >> We use Router Advertisement messages, instead of some other >> protocol like RIP [RFC2080], because Router Advertisements are an >> existing standard, stable protocol for router-to-host >> communication. Piggybacking this information on existing message >> traffic from routers to hosts reduces network overhead. Neighbor >> Discovery shares with Multicast Listener Discovery the property >> that they both define host-to-router interactions, while shielding >> the host from having to participate in more general router-to- >> router interactions. In addition, RIP is unsuitable because it does >> not carry route lifetimes so it requires frequent message traffic >> with greater processing overheads. -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, communications engineering From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 23 16:40:58 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49AB63A69FF for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:40:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.127 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.127 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 jfUYFKEGTL4X for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:40:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CC2B3A67DA for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:40:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LltjX-000E63-CP for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 23:39:07 +0000 Received: from [209.85.220.162] (helo=mail-fx0-f162.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LltjR-000E5l-PW for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 23:39:04 +0000 Received: by fxm6 with SMTP id 6so2032286fxm.41 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:39:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=vUEqcFpsU5uMTmajspW4y2pJp/sKqslTryteFT9a2Ik=; b=nfZwCFtcBssGDjT/6pcwolJ7aBIQmSmBDsT7/v2g20Hxng6fw5HZqgaQ8wbzeIGlEW yB2JywSNgKeAp0N8VH5m9wuiHbkTzMkWHciaviuovIBLIsovhaXNAYNtGlnUdLxy8cKD 1s5B4dunBx/g0DGwmz27TGzDbLCx/5KrNWtik= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=M9PCuKBj+vOCgxi/xU+zI2r9xpREJjLG0odCsIEOPpNK9qXa/KssKEL+nMH0E8sQ4Y Y8spBpxwWf0ww7ocY9+/jO/LgC4w3ueTNM9whN8hdxc1mbGdPMQkSpvR8mh0xTCQh3zz Mleq6mbqMJ5owexBlXOfHihoU0gnTAClB9uqk= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.103.192.2 with SMTP id u2mr3324697mup.95.1237851540481; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:39:00 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <6161A3E1-DCD1-467F-9AD5-0A15821413A2@apple.com> References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <0DD150BF-77BC-4527-BD35-9202F94496E0@apple.com> <95F8ED8E-261B-437C-8063-223D345C364B@apple.com> <943C3A80-979F-4289-BA20-C17D20861111@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> <6161A3E1-DCD1-467F-9AD5-0A15821413A2@apple.com> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:39:00 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 8801ed3afade1028 Message-ID: <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments From: Ole Troan To: james woodyatt Cc: IPv6 Operations Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 4:02 PM, james woodyatt wrote: > On Mar 23, 2009, at 15:57, Ole Troan wrote: >> >> ...and turning ND into a routing protocol? > > > From Section 1 of RFC 4191: >>> >>> We use Router Advertisement messages, instead of some other protocol like >>> RIP [RFC2080], because Router Advertisements are an existing standard, >>> stable protocol for router-to-host communication. Piggybacking this >>> information on existing message traffic from routers to hosts reduces >>> network overhead. Neighbor Discovery shares with Multicast Listener >>> Discovery the property that they both define host-to-router interactions, >>> while shielding the host from having to participate in more general >>> router-to-router interactions. In addition, RIP is unsuitable because it >>> does not carry route lifetimes so it requires frequent message traffic with >>> greater processing overheads. indeed. MSR is a router-to-host mechanism. the CPE acts for some purposes as a host on the upstream interface. do you expect the MSR routes to be limited to be used only for the host part of the CPE (i.e communication originating from the CPE) or to make it into the CPE's forwarding table? Ole From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 23 17:46:24 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ACFA28C267 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:46:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.705 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.705 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.210, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 jBdMWCVoiQp8 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:46:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 527B03A6872 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:46:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LluiH-000JJU-5s for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:41:53 +0000 Received: from [17.254.13.23] (helo=mail-out4.apple.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LluiC-000JJA-GE for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 00:41:50 +0000 Received: from relay11.apple.com (relay11.apple.com [17.128.113.48]) by mail-out4.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D838D5B13F70 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:41:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay11.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay11.apple.com (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with ESMTP id C777B28087 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:41:47 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 11807130-a708ebb000000fcd-63-49c82c4b808d Received: from [17.151.97.48] (unknown [17.151.97.48]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay11.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id 88BAA28086 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:41:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: james woodyatt To: IPv6 Operations In-Reply-To: <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:41:46 -0700 References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <0DD150BF-77BC-4527-BD35-9202F94496E0@apple.com> <95F8ED8E-261B-437C-8063-223D345C364B@apple.com> <943C3A80-979F-4289-BA20-C17D20861111@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> <6161A3E1-DCD1-467F-9AD5-0A15821413A2@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Mar 23, 2009, at 16:39, Ole Troan wrote: > From Section 1 of RFC 4191: >> >> We use Router Advertisement messages, instead of some other >> protocol like >> RIP [RFC2080], because Router Advertisements are an existing >> standard, >> stable protocol for router-to-host communication. Piggybacking this >> information on existing message traffic from routers to hosts reduces >> network overhead. Neighbor Discovery shares with Multicast Listener >> Discovery the property that they both define host-to-router >> interactions, >> while shielding the host from having to participate in more general >> router-to-router interactions. In addition, RIP is unsuitable >> because it >> does not carry route lifetimes so it requires frequent message >> traffic with >> greater processing overheads. > > indeed. MSR is a router-to-host mechanism. the CPE acts for some > purposes as a host on the upstream interface. do you expect the MSR > routes to be limited to be used only for the host part of the CPE (i.e > communication originating from the CPE) or to make it into the CPE's > forwarding table? Yes, naturally. Why not? If I were planning to implement a CPE router that processed received RA with RFC 4191 MSR options, I'm pretty sure I would do it so that the routes used by the node implementation were the same routes used by the forwarding implementation. It would be a lot of extra hassle to maintain two route tables, and the payoff would seem quite unclear to me. -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, communications engineering From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 23 18:03:56 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE8A928C1EE for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:03:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.208 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.208 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.313, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 Vkm2oJc+vcEX for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:03:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C72E428C1CE for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:03:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Llv38-000Led-0Q for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 01:03:26 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.117] (helo=sj-iport-6.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Llv33-000LeF-Px for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 01:03:23 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,410,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="272779026" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Mar 2009 01:03:21 +0000 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2O13Ld8007936; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:03:21 -0700 Received: from dhcp-41cd.meeting.ietf.org (sjc-vpn6-723.cisco.com [10.21.122.211]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2O13Lql021330; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 01:03:21 GMT Cc: mext-chairs@tools.ietf.org, mip4-chairs@tools.ietf.org, Kurt Erik Lindqvist , Ron Bonica , mext-ads@tools.ietf.org, draft-luo-v6ops-6man-shim6-lbam@tools.ietf.org Message-Id: <5801C1F3-B267-41EC-8A44-11C6A419851F@cisco.com> From: Fred Baker To: IPv6 Operations In-Reply-To: <49C80678.6080508@it.uc3m.es> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: Load Balancing for Mobile IP Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:03:20 -0700 References: <49C7FB72.5020104@it.uc3m.es> <0C2F04C3-1091-4C82-9F10-0F0675508A93@cisco.com> <49C80401.1040809@it.uc3m.es> <49C80678.6080508@it.uc3m.es> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=3137; t=1237856601; x=1238720601; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20Load=20Balancing=20for=20Mobile=20IP |Sender:=20; bh=+hdN6N8SWJDiGOI5h3kelAhEWHHbn84A25f815nshX4=; b=rwoRnlF3fsCw0ee54QlxeDRT+hg9p71Hq2lgo7vyoXVo3lMvIi+aIe0yLK zYuBsRkTJ5vhBpomVKqpwXIZ7oPO8Pu1CqVTIVGkHUhTw+3GqG31FrNW/cGn POM7NideXv; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Coming back to the WG with a question from this morning. We looked at =20= the Load Balancing draft and our initial reaction was to ask Mobile IP =20= to look at it. Mobile IP (Marcelo) is saying that they can look at the =20= issue if there is a requirement, but they cannot determine whether =20 there is a requirement. ISPs on the list - is this kind of issue a requirement for you? On Mar 23, 2009, at 3:00 PM, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: > I can see that the particular solution doesn't belong to v6ops, but =20= > whether the question whether problem is real or not does seem to =20 > belong to v6ops, right? > I mean, certainly mext cannot have a position on whether we need a =20 > load balancing mechanism for servers. We can certianly work on =20 > adapting MIP6 to support this, and whether a MIP6 solution is =20 > feasible and reaosnable, but i don't think we can detemrine if this =20= > work needs to be done > > > Fred Baker escribi=F3: >> The feedback in v6ops was as I stated. They thought this discussion =20= >> belonged in your working group. >> >> On Mar 23, 2009, at 2:49 PM, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: >> >>> Fred Baker escribi=F3: >>>> >>>> On Mar 23, 2009, at 2:13 PM, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Fred, >>>>> >>>>> quickly checked the draft, and my first thoughts are: >>>>> - seems only to deal with mip6 and not mip4, so i guess the mip4 =20= >>>>> guys could be off the hook, if they want to >>>>> - seems to fall somewhere between 6man, mext and v6ops... >>>>> >>>>> I think the first question is whether we need this or not. I =20 >>>>> think this input should come from ops, so that would be you :-) >>>> >>>> The CNNIC authors are looking at it from the perspective of =20 >>>> Chinese telecom requirements. I'll let them tell me I'm wrong, =20 >>>> but I presume they think this is important for their part of the =20= >>>> world at minimum. >>>> >>> >>> so, what was the feedback in v6ops? >>> i mean, was any other people other than the authors that thought =20 >>> this was needed? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> If you guys decide we need soemthing on these lines, we can then =20= >>>>> figure out if we do it in mext or in 6man, or both of them, =20 >>>>> jointly. >>>> >>>> I think one of those makes more sense than v6ops. >>>> >>>>> sounds reasonable? >>>>> >>>>> Regards, marcelo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Fred Baker escribi=F3: >>>>>> I'd like to bring >>>>>> >>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-luo-v6ops-6man-shim6-lbam >>>>>> "Load Balancing based on IPv6 Anycast and pseudo-Mobility", =20 >>>>>> Wanming Luo, >>>>>> XiaoDong Lee, Wei Mao, Mei Wang, 3-Nov-08, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> to your attention. We discussed it briefly this morning in =20 >>>>>> v6ops, as it is intended as a load-sharing solution. The sense =20= >>>>>> of the room was that it either belonged in Mobile IP, or that =20 >>>>>> we need to work together with Mobile IP on it. >>>>>> >>>>>> How would you recommend proceeding? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > From patricio@redesycomunic.com.ar Mon Mar 23 18:16:02 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DF4428C27F; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:16:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -45.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-45.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_80=2, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_SBL=20, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 1WN6Nymx6Oh2; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:16:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cpc2-nfds3-0-0-cust485.lei3.cable.ntl.com (cpc2-nfds3-0-0-cust485.lei3.cable.ntl.com [86.17.125.230]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 734D928C275; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:15:54 -0700 (PDT) To: "Nola Maurer" Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:16:45 -0500 Subject: The affordable watch alternative Message-ID: From: "Mallory Norwood" Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Hello Alexander If you've waited to get your Gucci watch, this is the right time to go for it. http://baker516.freehostingz.com From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 23 18:29:07 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE3DD3A67D9 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:29:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.127 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.127 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 WBAw-lXB99n3 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:29:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6DCF28C1F4 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:29:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LlvRG-000Nsp-Fp for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 01:28:22 +0000 Received: from [209.85.220.162] (helo=mail-fx0-f162.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LlvRB-000NsQ-0X for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 01:28:20 +0000 Received: by fxm6 with SMTP id 6so2052621fxm.41 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:28:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wdTnDpDf59SE8SZ76CyNpia3WewAGRrgZwheIhgLEzQ=; b=HfC7Ww6HyFAIv/16/ZhD13pYQJKw6/EcdJYUysVMjTSNpJQ9TznGdVvSGy4UsGK1kZ 4zm1DrrGnRJjfQcQftXlbOfqzApYVskSuuHA5jQMaibhmh8qN1QYGclaBxdGz28/WIF5 5dSbBurUgGfAfQZYZsgOPzOE1etLvOg/iFni4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=l6MlRqlskwfe2Vn+vNld88PO59M/McFxR4br7epd+H2IIOKwUpcNTSGqTp5coB+so/ kDMMbJ7URxGppgqE6Hb+F85e1Frr+tBH3qaFGm64m+QOy5AGgxISmpq1OjELTM4xntiD jOxbBLpKlKBw9BMOUxfZCch70y+SPo7rSnue4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.103.161.16 with SMTP id n16mr3361694muo.79.1237858095669; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:28:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <0DD150BF-77BC-4527-BD35-9202F94496E0@apple.com> <95F8ED8E-261B-437C-8063-223D345C364B@apple.com> <943C3A80-979F-4289-BA20-C17D20861111@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> <6161A3E1-DCD1-467F-9AD5-0A15821413A2@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:28:15 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 38a0c19a85785f2d Message-ID: <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments From: Ole Troan To: james woodyatt Cc: IPv6 Operations Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: James, >>> We use Router Advertisement messages, instead of some other protocol li= ke >>> RIP [RFC2080], because Router Advertisements are an existing standard, >>> stable protocol for router-to-host communication. Piggybacking this >>> information on existing message traffic from routers to hosts reduces >>> network overhead. Neighbor Discovery shares with Multicast Listener >>> Discovery the property that they both define host-to-router interaction= s, >>> while shielding the host from having to participate in more general >>> router-to-router interactions. In addition, RIP is unsuitable because i= t >>> does not carry route lifetimes so it requires frequent message traffic >>> with >>> greater processing overheads. >> >> indeed. MSR is a router-to-host mechanism. the CPE acts for some >> purposes as a host on the upstream interface. do you expect the MSR >> routes to be limited to be used only for the host part of the CPE (i.e >> communication originating from the CPE) or to make it into the CPE's >> forwarding table? > > > Yes, naturally. =A0Why not? because we have protocols doing that already? (RIP, OSPF, ISIS, BGP...) > If I were planning to implement a CPE router that processed received RA w= ith > RFC 4191 MSR options, I'm pretty sure I would do it so that the routes us= ed > by the node implementation were the same routes used by the forwarding > implementation. =A0It would be a lot of extra hassle to maintain two rout= e > tables, and the payoff would seem quite unclear to me. iff you wanted to make ND into a routing protocol using MSRs, I believe you would have to change RFC4191. and possibly the main ND spec, as routers doesn't listen to ND. if I understand this draft correctly it behaves both as a host (doing address assignment) and as a router (forwarding packets) on the upstream interface. that behaviour isn't described in RFC4861. I don't see any harm in e.g doing SLAAC as that's purely a host function. processing MSR routes on the other hand configures the router. Ole From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Mar 24 03:54:43 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA9C43A685F for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 03:54:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.167 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.167 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.090, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RDNS_NONE=0.1, RELAY_IS_203=0.994] 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 kHLxz+D2-+d9 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 03:54:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90B3A3A6CD6 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 03:54:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lm4DJ-000G4C-0j for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:50:33 +0000 Received: from [203.6.132.66] (helo=smtp2.mail.adnap.net.au) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lm4DA-000G21-QW for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:50:30 +0000 Received: from 219-90-229-197.ip.adam.com.au ([219.90.229.197] helo=opy.nosense.org) by smtp2.mail.adnap.net.au with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lm3pS-000GUk-B5; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:55:54 +1030 Received: from opy.nosense.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by opy.nosense.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 557B149298; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:19:42 +1030 (CST) Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:19:42 +1030 From: Mark Smith To: Fred Baker Cc: IPv6 Operations , mext-chairs@tools.ietf.org, mip4-chairs@tools.ietf.org, Kurt Erik Lindqvist , Ron Bonica , mext-ads@tools.ietf.org, draft-luo-v6ops-6man-shim6-lbam@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: Load Balancing for Mobile IP Message-Id: <20090324211942.5c948551.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> In-Reply-To: <5801C1F3-B267-41EC-8A44-11C6A419851F@cisco.com> References: <49C7FB72.5020104@it.uc3m.es> <0C2F04C3-1091-4C82-9F10-0F0675508A93@cisco.com> <49C80401.1040809@it.uc3m.es> <49C80678.6080508@it.uc3m.es> <5801C1F3-B267-41EC-8A44-11C6A419851F@cisco.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.14.7; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) X-Location: Lower Mitcham, South Australia, 5062 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Hi Fred, On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:03:20 -0700 Fred Baker wrote: > Coming back to the WG with a question from this morning. We looked at =20 > the Load Balancing draft and our initial reaction was to ask Mobile IP =20 > to look at it. Mobile IP (Marcelo) is saying that they can look at the =20 > issue if there is a requirement, but they cannot determine whether =20 > there is a requirement. >=20 > ISPs on the list - is this kind of issue a requirement for you? >=20 Yes. It was terrible to have to enable universal MSS hacking on 10 000s of ADSL customers' connections, just to deal with broken PMTUD on PPPoE connections, caused by some NATting load balancers which broke end-to-end transparency of ICMP Dest Unreachable Packet Too Bigs. A IETF specified, NATless IPv6 load balancing solution would be great. Regards, Mark. >=20 > On Mar 23, 2009, at 3:00 PM, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: >=20 > > I can see that the particular solution doesn't belong to v6ops, but =20 > > whether the question whether problem is real or not does seem to =20 > > belong to v6ops, right? > > I mean, certainly mext cannot have a position on whether we need a =20 > > load balancing mechanism for servers. We can certianly work on =20 > > adapting MIP6 to support this, and whether a MIP6 solution is =20 > > feasible and reaosnable, but i don't think we can detemrine if this =20 > > work needs to be done > > > > > > Fred Baker escribi=F3: > >> The feedback in v6ops was as I stated. They thought this discussion =20 > >> belonged in your working group. > >> > >> On Mar 23, 2009, at 2:49 PM, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: > >> > >>> Fred Baker escribi=F3: > >>>> > >>>> On Mar 23, 2009, at 2:13 PM, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi Fred, > >>>>> > >>>>> quickly checked the draft, and my first thoughts are: > >>>>> - seems only to deal with mip6 and not mip4, so i guess the mip4 =20 > >>>>> guys could be off the hook, if they want to > >>>>> - seems to fall somewhere between 6man, mext and v6ops... > >>>>> > >>>>> I think the first question is whether we need this or not. I =20 > >>>>> think this input should come from ops, so that would be you :-) > >>>> > >>>> The CNNIC authors are looking at it from the perspective of =20 > >>>> Chinese telecom requirements. I'll let them tell me I'm wrong, =20 > >>>> but I presume they think this is important for their part of the =20 > >>>> world at minimum. > >>>> > >>> > >>> so, what was the feedback in v6ops? > >>> i mean, was any other people other than the authors that thought =20 > >>> this was needed? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>> If you guys decide we need soemthing on these lines, we can then =20 > >>>>> figure out if we do it in mext or in 6man, or both of them, =20 > >>>>> jointly. > >>>> > >>>> I think one of those makes more sense than v6ops. > >>>> > >>>>> sounds reasonable? > >>>>> > >>>>> Regards, marcelo > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Fred Baker escribi=F3: > >>>>>> I'd like to bring > >>>>>> > >>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-luo-v6ops-6man-shim6-lbam > >>>>>> "Load Balancing based on IPv6 Anycast and pseudo-Mobility", =20 > >>>>>> Wanming Luo, > >>>>>> XiaoDong Lee, Wei Mao, Mei Wang, 3-Nov-08, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> to your attention. We discussed it briefly this morning in =20 > >>>>>> v6ops, as it is intended as a load-sharing solution. The sense =20 > >>>>>> of the room was that it either belonged in Mobile IP, or that =20 > >>>>>> we need to work together with Mobile IP on it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> How would you recommend proceeding? > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > > >=20 >=20 From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Mar 24 07:11:15 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B9D83A6D0C for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 07:11:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER, Duplicate header field: "Message-ID" X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.964 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.964 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=1.456, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_SUB_ENC_UTF8=0.152] 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 W4dOXMzHw24C for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 07:11:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8C783A6A76 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 07:11:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lm7Hy-0003cV-Et for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:07:34 +0000 Received: from [159.226.7.146] (helo=cnnic.cn) by psg.com with smtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lm7Ho-0003bI-9I for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:07:28 +0000 Received: (eyou send program); Tue, 24 Mar 2009 22:07:22 +0800 Message-ID: <437903642.25246@cnnic.cn> X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: luowanming@cnnic.cn Received: from unknown (HELO lenovo-5be562e5) (127.0.0.1) by 127.0.0.1 with SMTP; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 22:07:22 +0800 Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 22:07:21 +0800 From: "=?utf-8?B?bHVvd2FubWluZw==?=" To: "=?utf-8?B?TWFyayBTbWl0aA==?=" , "=?utf-8?B?RnJlZCBCYWtlcg==?=" Cc: "=?utf-8?B?SVB2NiBPcGVyYXRpb25z?=" , "=?utf-8?B?bWV4dC1jaGFpcnM=?=" , "=?utf-8?B?bWlwNC1jaGFpcnM=?=" , "=?utf-8?B?S3VydCBFcmlrIExpbmRxdmlzdA==?=" , "=?utf-8?B?Um9uQm9uaWNh?=" , "=?utf-8?B?bWV4dC1hZHM=?=" , "=?utf-8?B?ZHJhZnQtbHVvLXY2b3BzLTZtYW4tc2hpbTYtbGJhbQ==?=" References: , <49C7FB72.5020104@it.uc3m.es>, <0C2F04C3-1091-4C82-9F10-0F0675508A93@cisco.com>, <49C80401.1040809@it.uc3m.es>, , <49C80678.6080508@it.uc3m.es>, <5801C1F3-B267-41EC-8A44-11C6A419851F@cisco.com>, <437894020.05666@cnnic.cn> Subject: =?utf-8?B?UmU6IFJlOiBMb2FkIEJhbGFuY2luZyBmb3IgTW9iaWxlIElQ?= Message-ID: <200903242207204374178@cnnic.cn> X-mailer: Foxmail 6, 14, 103, 24 [cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====003_Dragon742880878072_=====" Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --=====003_Dragon742880878072_===== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 VGhhbmtzIGZvciBNYXJrJ3MgY29tbWVudHMuIEJlY2F1c2UgdGhlIHRvcGljIG9mIG15IGRyYWZ0 ICBtYXkgaW52b2x2ZXMgc29tZSBhc3BlY3RzIG9mIElQdjYsIGl0IHdhcyBkaWZmaWN1bHQgZm9y IG1lIHRvIGRlY2lkZSB3aGljaCBXRyBpcyBzdWl0YWJsZSB0byBzdWJtaXQuIEhvd2V2ZXIsIEkg dGhpbmsgYSBmbGV4aWJsZSwgIGhpZ2hlciBzY2FsYWJpbGl0eSwgbm8gdG9wb2xvZ2ljYWwgY29u c3RyYWludCBsb2FkIGJhbGFuY2luZyBtZWNobmlzbSBpcyBuZWNlc3NvcnkgYmVjYXVzZSB0aGVy ZSBhcmUgaW5kZWVkIG1hbnkgSVB2NiBkZXBsb3ltZW50IHNjZW5hcmlvcyBuZWVkaW5nIGxvYWQg YmFubGFuY2luZyxlLmcuTkFULVBULENHTiwgTkFUNjQgLFR1bm5lbCBicm9rZXIsIG9yIE11bHRp aG9taW5nLiBUaHVzLCBpZiB3ZSBjYW4gIHNwZWNpZnksIE5BVGxlc3MgSVB2NiBsb2FkIGJhbGFu Y2luZyBzb2x1dGlvbiB3aGljaCAgYWxzbyBpcyBzZWFtbGVzcyBjb21wYXRpYmlsaXR5IHdpdGgg SVB2NiBwcm90b2NvbHMgd2lsbCBiZSB2ZXJ5IGJlbmVmaWNpYWwgZm9yIElQdjYgZGVwbG95bWVu dCBhbmQgb3BlcmF0aW9uLiBTbywgd2hhdCBpcyB0aGUgbmV4dCBzdGVwIGZvciB0aGlzIGRyYWZ0 PyBNYXliZSBpdCBuZWVkcyBzb21lIG1vZGlmaWNhdGlvbnMgYWNjb3JkaW5nIHRvIGNvbW1lbnRz PyBvciBtb3ZlIHRvIG1leHQgV0c/IG9yIGpvaW50bHkgd29ya2VkIGJ5IHY2b3BzIGFuZCBNb2Jp bGUgSVA/DQoNClJlZ2FyZHMsDQpXYW5taW5nIEx1bw0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCuWPkeS7tuS6uu+8miBN YXJrIFNtaXRoIA0K5Y+R6YCB5pe26Ze077yaIDIwMDktMDMtMjQgIDE5OjI3OjAwIA0K5pS25Lu2 5Lq677yaIEZyZWQgQmFrZXIgDQrmioTpgIHvvJogSVB2NiBPcGVyYXRpb25zOyBtZXh0LWNoYWly czsgbWlwNC1jaGFpcnM7IEt1cnQgRXJpayBMaW5kcXZpc3Q7IFJvbkJvbmljYTsgbWV4dC1hZHM7 IGRyYWZ0LWx1by12Nm9wcy02bWFuLXNoaW02LWxiYW0gDQrkuLvpopjvvJogUmU6IExvYWQgQmFs YW5jaW5nIGZvciBNb2JpbGUgSVAgDQogDQpIaSBGcmVkLA0KT24gTW9uLCAyMyBNYXIgMjAwOSAx ODowMzoyMCAtMDcwMA0KRnJlZCBCYWtlciA8ZnJlZEBjaXNjby5jb20+IHdyb3RlOg0KPiBDb21p bmcgYmFjayB0byB0aGUgV0cgd2l0aCBhIHF1ZXN0aW9uIGZyb20gdGhpcyBtb3JuaW5nLiBXZSBs b29rZWQgYXQgIA0KPiB0aGUgTG9hZCBCYWxhbmNpbmcgZHJhZnQgYW5kIG91ciBpbml0aWFsIHJl YWN0aW9uIHdhcyB0byBhc2sgTW9iaWxlIElQICANCj4gdG8gbG9vayBhdCBpdC4gTW9iaWxlIElQ IChNYXJjZWxvKSBpcyBzYXlpbmcgdGhhdCB0aGV5IGNhbiBsb29rIGF0IHRoZSAgDQo+IGlzc3Vl IGlmIHRoZXJlIGlzIGEgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnQsIGJ1dCB0aGV5IGNhbm5vdCBkZXRlcm1pbmUgd2hl dGhlciAgDQo+IHRoZXJlIGlzIGEgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnQuDQo+IA0KPiBJU1BzIG9uIHRoZSBsaXN0 IC0gaXMgdGhpcyBraW5kIG9mIGlzc3VlIGEgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnQgZm9yIHlvdT8NCj4gDQpZZXMu IEl0IHdhcyB0ZXJyaWJsZSB0byBoYXZlIHRvIGVuYWJsZSB1bml2ZXJzYWwgTVNTIGhhY2tpbmcg b24NCjEwIDAwMHMgb2YgQURTTCBjdXN0b21lcnMnIGNvbm5lY3Rpb25zLCBqdXN0IHRvIGRlYWwg d2l0aCBicm9rZW4gUE1UVUQNCm9uIFBQUG9FIGNvbm5lY3Rpb25zLCBjYXVzZWQgYnkgc29tZSBO QVR0aW5nIGxvYWQgYmFsYW5jZXJzIHdoaWNoIGJyb2tlDQplbmQtdG8tZW5kIHRyYW5zcGFyZW5j eSBvZiBJQ01QIERlc3QgVW5yZWFjaGFibGUgUGFja2V0IFRvbyBCaWdzLiBBDQpJRVRGIHNwZWNp ZmllZCwgTkFUbGVzcyBJUHY2IGxvYWQgYmFsYW5jaW5nIHNvbHV0aW9uIHdvdWxkIGJlIGdyZWF0 Lg0KUmVnYXJkcywNCk1hcmsuDQo+IA0KPiBPbiBNYXIgMjMsIDIwMDksIGF0IDM6MDAgUE0sIG1h cmNlbG8gYmFnbnVsbyBicmF1biB3cm90ZToNCj4gDQo+ID4gSSBjYW4gc2VlIHRoYXQgdGhlIHBh cnRpY3VsYXIgc29sdXRpb24gZG9lc24ndCBiZWxvbmcgdG8gdjZvcHMsIGJ1dCAgDQo+ID4gd2hl dGhlciB0aGUgcXVlc3Rpb24gd2hldGhlciBwcm9ibGVtIGlzIHJlYWwgb3Igbm90IGRvZXMgc2Vl bSB0byAgDQo+ID4gYmVsb25nIHRvIHY2b3BzLCByaWdodD8NCj4gPiBJIG1lYW4sIGNlcnRhaW5s eSBtZXh0IGNhbm5vdCBoYXZlIGEgcG9zaXRpb24gb24gd2hldGhlciB3ZSBuZWVkIGEgIA0KPiA+ IGxvYWQgYmFsYW5jaW5nIG1lY2hhbmlzbSBmb3Igc2VydmVycy4gV2UgY2FuIGNlcnRpYW5seSB3 b3JrIG9uICANCj4gPiBhZGFwdGluZyBNSVA2IHRvIHN1cHBvcnQgdGhpcywgYW5kIHdoZXRoZXIg YSBNSVA2IHNvbHV0aW9uIGlzICANCj4gPiBmZWFzaWJsZSBhbmQgcmVhb3NuYWJsZSwgYnV0IGkg ZG9uJ3QgdGhpbmsgd2UgY2FuIGRldGVtcmluZSBpZiB0aGlzICANCj4gPiB3b3JrIG5lZWRzIHRv IGJlIGRvbmUNCj4gPg0KPiA+DQo+ID4gRnJlZCBCYWtlciBlc2NyaWJpPw0KPiA+PiBUaGUgZmVl ZGJhY2sgaW4gdjZvcHMgd2FzIGFzIEkgc3RhdGVkLiBUaGV5IHRob3VnaHQgdGhpcyBkaXNjdXNz aW9uICANCj4gPj4gYmVsb25nZWQgaW4geW91ciB3b3JraW5nIGdyb3VwLg0KPiA+Pg0KPiA+PiBP biBNYXIgMjMsIDIwMDksIGF0IDI6NDkgUE0sIG1hcmNlbG8gYmFnbnVsbyBicmF1biB3cm90ZToN Cj4gPj4NCj4gPj4+IEZyZWQgQmFrZXIgZXNjcmliaT8NCj4gPj4+Pg0KPiA+Pj4+IE9uIE1hciAy MywgMjAwOSwgYXQgMjoxMyBQTSwgbWFyY2VsbyBiYWdudWxvIGJyYXVuIHdyb3RlOg0KPiA+Pj4+ DQo+ID4+Pj4+IEhpIEZyZWQsDQo+ID4+Pj4+DQo+ID4+Pj4+IHF1aWNrbHkgY2hlY2tlZCB0aGUg ZHJhZnQsIGFuZCBteSBmaXJzdCB0aG91Z2h0cyBhcmU6DQo+ID4+Pj4+IC0gc2VlbXMgb25seSB0 byBkZWFsIHdpdGggbWlwNiBhbmQgbm90IG1pcDQsIHNvIGkgZ3Vlc3MgdGhlIG1pcDQgIA0KPiA+ Pj4+PiBndXlzIGNvdWxkIGJlIG9mZiB0aGUgaG9vaywgaWYgdGhleSB3YW50IHRvDQo+ID4+Pj4+ IC0gc2VlbXMgdG8gZmFsbCBzb21ld2hlcmUgYmV0d2VlbiA2bWFuLCBtZXh0IGFuZCB2Nm9wcy4u Lg0KPiA+Pj4+Pg0KPiA+Pj4+PiBJIHRoaW5rIHRoZSBmaXJzdCBxdWVzdGlvbiBpcyB3aGV0aGVy IHdlIG5lZWQgdGhpcyBvciBub3QuIEkgIA0KPiA+Pj4+PiB0aGluayB0aGlzIGlucHV0IHNob3Vs ZCBjb21lIGZyb20gb3BzLCBzbyB0aGF0IHdvdWxkIGJlIHlvdSA6LSkNCj4gPj4+Pg0KPiA+Pj4+ IFRoZSBDTk5JQyBhdXRob3JzIGFyZSBsb29raW5nIGF0IGl0IGZyb20gdGhlIHBlcnNwZWN0aXZl IG9mICANCj4gPj4+PiBDaGluZXNlIHRlbGVjb20gcmVxdWlyZW1lbnRzLiBJJ2xsIGxldCB0aGVt IHRlbGwgbWUgSSdtIHdyb25nLCAgDQo+ID4+Pj4gYnV0IEkgcHJlc3VtZSB0aGV5IHRoaW5rIHRo aXMgaXMgaW1wb3J0YW50IGZvciB0aGVpciBwYXJ0IG9mIHRoZSAgDQo+ID4+Pj4gd29ybGQgYXQg bWluaW11bS4NCj4gPj4+Pg0KPiA+Pj4NCj4gPj4+IHNvLCB3aGF0IHdhcyB0aGUgZmVlZGJhY2sg aW4gdjZvcHM/DQo+ID4+PiBpIG1lYW4sIHdhcyBhbnkgb3RoZXIgcGVvcGxlIG90aGVyIHRoYW4g dGhlIGF1dGhvcnMgdGhhdCB0aG91Z2h0ICANCj4gPj4+IHRoaXMgd2FzIG5lZWRlZD8NCj4gPj4+ DQo+ID4+Pg0KPiA+Pj4NCj4gPj4+DQo+ID4+Pj4+IElmIHlvdSBndXlzIGRlY2lkZSB3ZSBuZWVk IHNvZW10aGluZyBvbiB0aGVzZSBsaW5lcywgd2UgY2FuIHRoZW4gIA0KPiA+Pj4+PiBmaWd1cmUg b3V0IGlmIHdlIGRvIGl0IGluIG1leHQgb3IgaW4gNm1hbiwgb3IgYm90aCBvZiB0aGVtLCAgDQo+ ID4+Pj4+IGpvaW50bHkuDQo+ID4+Pj4NCj4gPj4+PiBJIHRoaW5rIG9uZSBvZiB0aG9zZSBtYWtl cyBtb3JlIHNlbnNlIHRoYW4gdjZvcHMuDQo+ID4+Pj4NCj4gPj4+Pj4gc291bmRzIHJlYXNvbmFi bGU/DQo+ID4+Pj4+DQo+ID4+Pj4+IFJlZ2FyZHMsIG1hcmNlbG8NCj4gPj4+Pj4NCj4gPj4+Pj4N Cj4gPj4+Pj4gRnJlZCBCYWtlciBlc2NyaWJpPw0KPiA+Pj4+Pj4gSSdkIGxpa2UgdG8gYnJpbmcN Cj4gPj4+Pj4+DQo+ID4+Pj4+PiBodHRwOi8vdG9vbHMuaWV0Zi5vcmcvaHRtbC9kcmFmdC1sdW8t djZvcHMtNm1hbi1zaGltNi1sYmFtDQo+ID4+Pj4+PiAiTG9hZCBCYWxhbmNpbmcgYmFzZWQgb24g SVB2NiBBbnljYXN0IGFuZCBwc2V1ZG8tTW9iaWxpdHkiLCAgDQo+ID4+Pj4+PiBXYW5taW5nIEx1 bywNCj4gPj4+Pj4+IFhpYW9Eb25nIExlZSwgV2VpIE1hbywgTWVpIFdhbmcsIDMtTm92LTA4LA0K PiA+Pj4+Pj4gPGRyYWZ0LWx1by12Nm9wcy02bWFuLXNoaW02LWxiYW0tMDAudHh0Pg0KPiA+Pj4+ Pj4NCj4gPj4+Pj4+IHRvIHlvdXIgYXR0ZW50aW9uLiBXZSBkaXNjdXNzZWQgaXQgYnJpZWZseSB0 aGlzIG1vcm5pbmcgaW4gIA0KPiA+Pj4+Pj4gdjZvcHMsIGFzIGl0IGlzIGludGVuZGVkIGFzIGEg bG9hZC1zaGFyaW5nIHNvbHV0aW9uLiBUaGUgc2Vuc2UgIA0KPiA+Pj4+Pj4gb2YgdGhlIHJvb20g d2FzIHRoYXQgaXQgZWl0aGVyIGJlbG9uZ2VkIGluIE1vYmlsZSBJUCwgb3IgdGhhdCAgDQo+ID4+ Pj4+PiB3ZSBuZWVkIHRvIHdvcmsgdG9nZXRoZXIgd2l0aCBNb2JpbGUgSVAgb24gaXQuDQo+ID4+ Pj4+Pg0KPiA+Pj4+Pj4gSG93IHdvdWxkIHlvdSByZWNvbW1lbmQgcHJvY2VlZGluZz8NCj4gPj4+ Pj4+DQo+ID4+Pj4+DQo+ID4+Pj4NCj4gPj4+Pg0KPiA+Pj4NCj4gPj4NCj4gPj4NCj4gPg0KPiAN Cj4gDQo= --=====003_Dragon742880878072_===== Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 77u/PCFET0NUWVBFIEhUTUwgUFVCTElDICItLy9XM0MvL0RURCBIVE1MIDQuMCBUcmFuc2l0aW9u YWwvL0VOIj4NCjxIVE1MPjxIRUFEPg0KPE1FVEEgaHR0cC1lcXVpdj1Db250ZW50LVR5cGUgY29u dGVudD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij4NCjxNRVRBIGNvbnRlbnQ9Ik1TSFRNTCA2 LjAwLjYwMDAuMTY4MDkiIG5hbWU9R0VORVJBVE9SPg0KPFNUWUxFPkBmb250LWZhY2Ugew0KCWZv bnQtZmFtaWx5OiDlrovkvZM7DQp9DQpAZm9udC1mYWNlIHsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseTogVmVyZGFu YTsNCn0NCkBmb250LWZhY2Ugew0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiBA5a6L5L2TOw0KfQ0KQHBhZ2UgU2Vj dGlvbjEge3NpemU6IDU5NS4zcHQgODQxLjlwdDsgbWFyZ2luOiA3Mi4wcHQgOTAuMHB0IDcyLjBw dCA5MC4wcHQ7IGxheW91dC1ncmlkOiAxNS42cHQ7IH0NClAuTXNvTm9ybWFsIHsNCglURVhULUpV U1RJRlk6IGludGVyLWlkZW9ncmFwaDsgRk9OVC1TSVpFOiAxMC41cHQ7IE1BUkdJTjogMGNtIDBj bSAwcHQ7IEZPTlQtRkFNSUxZOiAiVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuIjsgVEVYVC1BTElHTjoganVzdGlm eQ0KfQ0KTEkuTXNvTm9ybWFsIHsNCglURVhULUpVU1RJRlk6IGludGVyLWlkZW9ncmFwaDsgRk9O VC1TSVpFOiAxMC41cHQ7IE1BUkdJTjogMGNtIDBjbSAwcHQ7IEZPTlQtRkFNSUxZOiAiVGltZXMg TmV3IFJvbWFuIjsgVEVYVC1BTElHTjoganVzdGlmeQ0KfQ0KRElWLk1zb05vcm1hbCB7DQoJVEVY VC1KVVNUSUZZOiBpbnRlci1pZGVvZ3JhcGg7IEZPTlQtU0laRTogMTAuNXB0OyBNQVJHSU46IDBj bSAwY20gMHB0OyBGT05ULUZBTUlMWTogIlRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbiI7IFRFWFQtQUxJR046IGp1 c3RpZnkNCn0NCkE6bGluayB7DQoJQ09MT1I6IGJsdWU7IFRFWFQtREVDT1JBVElPTjogdW5kZXJs aW5lDQp9DQpTUEFOLk1zb0h5cGVybGluayB7DQoJQ09MT1I6IGJsdWU7IFRFWFQtREVDT1JBVElP TjogdW5kZXJsaW5lDQp9DQpBOnZpc2l0ZWQgew0KCUNPTE9SOiBwdXJwbGU7IFRFWFQtREVDT1JB VElPTjogdW5kZXJsaW5lDQp9DQpTUEFOLk1zb0h5cGVybGlua0ZvbGxvd2VkIHsNCglDT0xPUjog cHVycGxlOyBURVhULURFQ09SQVRJT046IHVuZGVybGluZQ0KfQ0KU1BBTi5FbWFpbFN0eWxlMTcg ew0KCUZPTlQtV0VJR0hUOiBub3JtYWw7IENPTE9SOiB3aW5kb3d0ZXh0OyBGT05ULVNUWUxFOiBu b3JtYWw7IEZPTlQtRkFNSUxZOiBWZXJkYW5hOyBURVhULURFQ09SQVRJT046IG5vbmU7IG1zby1z dHlsZS10eXBlOiBwZXJzb25hbC1jb21wb3NlDQp9DQpESVYuU2VjdGlvbjEgew0KCXBhZ2U6IFNl Y3Rpb24xDQp9DQpVTktOT1dOIHsNCglGT05ULVNJWkU6IDEwcHQNCn0NCkJMT0NLUVVPVEUgew0K CU1BUkdJTi1UT1A6IDBweDsgTUFSR0lOLUJPVFRPTTogMHB4OyBNQVJHSU4tTEVGVDogMmVtDQp9 DQpPTCB7DQoJTUFSR0lOLVRPUDogMHB4OyBNQVJHSU4tQk9UVE9NOiAwcHgNCn0NClVMIHsNCglN QVJHSU4tVE9QOiAwcHg7IE1BUkdJTi1CT1RUT006IDBweA0KfQ0KPC9TVFlMRT4NCjwvSEVBRD4N CjxCT0RZIHN0eWxlPSJGT05ULVNJWkU6IDEwcHQ7IEZPTlQtRkFNSUxZOiB2ZXJkYW5hIj4NCjxE SVY+PEZPTlQgZmFjZT1WZXJkYW5hIGNvbG9yPSMwMDAwODAgc2l6ZT0yPg0KPERJVj48Rk9OVCBm YWNlPVZlcmRhbmEgY29sb3I9IzAwMDA4MCBzaXplPTI+VGhhbmtzJm5ic3A7Zm9yIE1hcmsncyBj b21tZW50cy4gDQpCZWNhdXNlIHRoZSB0b3BpYyBvZiBteSBkcmFmdCZuYnNwOyBtYXkgaW52b2x2 ZXMgc29tZSZuYnNwO2FzcGVjdHMgb2YgSVB2NiwgDQppdCZuYnNwO3dhcyBkaWZmaWN1bHQmbmJz cDtmb3IgbWUgdG8gZGVjaWRlJm5ic3A7d2hpY2ggV0cgaXMgc3VpdGFibGUgdG8gc3VibWl0LiAN Ckhvd2V2ZXIsIEkgdGhpbmsgYSBmbGV4aWJsZSwmbmJzcDs8Rk9OVCBjb2xvcj0jMDAwMDAwPiBo aWdoZXIgc2NhbGFiaWxpdHksIG5vIA0KdG9wb2xvZ2ljYWwgY29uc3RyYWludCBsb2FkIGJhbGFu Y2luZyBtZWNobmlzbSBpcyBuZWNlc3NvcnkmbmJzcDtiZWNhdXNlIA0KPC9GT05UPnRoZXJlIGFy ZSBpbmRlZWQgbWFueSBJUHY2IGRlcGxveW1lbnQgPFNQQU4gbGFuZz1FTi1VUyANCnN0eWxlPSJG T05ULVNJWkU6IDEwcHQ7IENPTE9SOiBuYXZ5OyBGT05ULUZBTUlMWTogVmVyZGFuYTsgbXNvLWJp ZGktZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IOWui+S9kyI+c2NlbmFyaW9zPC9TUEFOPiANCm5lZWRpbmcgbG9hZCAN CmJhbmxhbmNpbmcsZS5nLk5BVC1QVCxDR04sJm5ic3A7TkFUNjQmbmJzcDssVHVubmVsJm5ic3A7 YnJva2VyLCZuYnNwO29yIA0KTXVsdGlob21pbmcuIFRodXMsIGlmIHdlIGNhbiZuYnNwOyA8Rk9O VCANCmNvbG9yPSMwMDAwMDA+c3BlY2lmeSwmbmJzcDtOQVRsZXNzJm5ic3A7SVB2NiZuYnNwO2xv YWQmbmJzcDtiYWxhbmNpbmcmbmJzcDtzb2x1dGlvbiZuYnNwO3doaWNoJm5ic3A7IA0KYWxzbyBp cyBzZWFtbGVzcyBjb21wYXRpYmlsaXR5IHdpdGggSVB2NiBwcm90b2NvbHMmbmJzcDt3aWxsIGJl IHZlcnkgDQo8L0ZPTlQ+PC9GT05UPjxGT05UIGNvbG9yPSMwMDAwODA+YmVuZWZpY2lhbCBmb3Ig SVB2NiBkZXBsb3ltZW50IGFuZCBvcGVyYXRpb24uIA0KU28sIHdoYXQgaXMgdGhlIG5leHQgc3Rl cCBmb3IgdGhpcyBkcmFmdD8gTWF5YmUgaXQgbmVlZHMgc29tZSBtb2RpZmljYXRpb25zIA0KYWNj b3JkaW5nIHRvIGNvbW1lbnRzPyBvciBtb3ZlIHRvIG1leHQgV0c/IG9yIGpvaW50bHkgd29ya2Vk IGJ5IHY2b3BzIGFuZCBNb2JpbGUgDQpJUD88L0ZPTlQ+PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPjxGT05UIGNvbG9y PSMwMDAwODA+PC9GT05UPiZuYnNwOzwvRElWPg0KPERJVj48Rk9OVCBjb2xvcj0jMDAwMDgwPlJl Z2FyZHMsPC9GT05UPjwvRElWPg0KPERJVj48Rk9OVCBjb2xvcj0jMDAwMDgwPldhbm1pbmcgTHVv PC9GT05UPjwvRElWPjwvRk9OVD48L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+PEZPTlQgZmFjZT1WZXJkYW5hIGNvbG9y PSMwMDAwODAgc2l6ZT0yPjwvRk9OVD4mbmJzcDs8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+PEZPTlQgZmFjZT1WZXJk YW5hIGNvbG9yPSMwMDAwODAgc2l6ZT0yPjwvRk9OVD4mbmJzcDs8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+DQo8RElW PjxGT05UIGZhY2U9VmVyZGFuYSBjb2xvcj0jYzBjMGMwIHNpemU9Mj48L0ZPTlQ+PC9ESVY+PEZP TlQgZmFjZT1WZXJkYW5hIA0KY29sb3I9IzAwMDA4MCBzaXplPTI+DQo8SFI+DQo8L0ZPTlQ+PC9E SVY+DQo8RElWPjxGT05UIGZhY2U9VmVyZGFuYSBzaXplPTI+PFNUUk9ORz7lj5Hku7bkurrvvJo8 L1NUUk9ORz4gTWFyayBTbWl0aCA8L0ZPTlQ+PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPjxGT05UIGZhY2U9VmVyZGFu YSBzaXplPTI+PFNUUk9ORz7lj5HpgIHml7bpl7TvvJo8L1NUUk9ORz4gMjAwOS0wMy0yNCZuYnNw OyAxOToyNzowMCANCjwvRk9OVD48L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+PEZPTlQgZmFjZT1WZXJkYW5hIHNpemU9 Mj48U1RST05HPuaUtuS7tuS6uu+8mjwvU1RST05HPiBGcmVkIEJha2VyIDwvRk9OVD48L0RJVj4N CjxESVY+PEZPTlQgZmFjZT1WZXJkYW5hIHNpemU9Mj48U1RST05HPuaKhOmAge+8mjwvU1RST05H PiBJUHY2IE9wZXJhdGlvbnM7IA0KbWV4dC1jaGFpcnM7IG1pcDQtY2hhaXJzOyBLdXJ0IEVyaWsg TGluZHF2aXN0OyBSb25Cb25pY2E7IG1leHQtYWRzOyANCmRyYWZ0LWx1by12Nm9wcy02bWFuLXNo aW02LWxiYW0gPC9GT05UPjwvRElWPg0KPERJVj48Rk9OVCBmYWNlPVZlcmRhbmEgc2l6ZT0yPjxT VFJPTkc+5Li76aKY77yaPC9TVFJPTkc+IFJlOiBMb2FkIEJhbGFuY2luZyBmb3IgDQpNb2JpbGUg SVAgPC9GT05UPjwvRElWPg0KPERJVj48Rk9OVCBmYWNlPVZlcmRhbmEgc2l6ZT0yPjwvRk9OVD4g PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPjxGT05UIGZhY2U9VmVyZGFuYSBzaXplPTI+DQo8RElWPkhpJm5ic3A7RnJl ZCw8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPk9uJm5ic3A7TW9uLCZuYnNwOzIzJm5ic3A7TWFy Jm5ic3A7MjAwOSZuYnNwOzE4OjAzOjIwJm5ic3A7LTA3MDA8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+RnJlZCZuYnNw O0Jha2VyJm5ic3A7Jmx0O2ZyZWRAY2lzY28uY29tJmd0OyZuYnNwO3dyb3RlOjwvRElWPg0KPERJ Vj48L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+Jmd0OyZuYnNwO0NvbWluZyZuYnNwO2JhY2smbmJzcDt0byZuYnNwO3Ro ZSZuYnNwO1dHJm5ic3A7d2l0aCZuYnNwO2EmbmJzcDtxdWVzdGlvbiZuYnNwO2Zyb20mbmJzcDt0 aGlzJm5ic3A7bW9ybmluZy4mbmJzcDtXZSZuYnNwO2xvb2tlZCZuYnNwO2F0Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7 PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPiZndDsmbmJzcDt0aGUmbmJzcDtMb2FkJm5ic3A7QmFsYW5jaW5nJm5ic3A7 ZHJhZnQmbmJzcDthbmQmbmJzcDtvdXImbmJzcDtpbml0aWFsJm5ic3A7cmVhY3Rpb24mbmJzcDt3 YXMmbmJzcDt0byZuYnNwO2FzayZuYnNwO01vYmlsZSZuYnNwO0lQJm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7PC9ESVY+ DQo8RElWPiZndDsmbmJzcDt0byZuYnNwO2xvb2smbmJzcDthdCZuYnNwO2l0LiZuYnNwO01vYmls ZSZuYnNwO0lQJm5ic3A7KE1hcmNlbG8pJm5ic3A7aXMmbmJzcDtzYXlpbmcmbmJzcDt0aGF0Jm5i c3A7dGhleSZuYnNwO2NhbiZuYnNwO2xvb2smbmJzcDthdCZuYnNwO3RoZSZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOzwv RElWPg0KPERJVj4mZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7aXNzdWUmbmJzcDtpZiZuYnNwO3RoZXJlJm5ic3A7aXMmbmJz cDthJm5ic3A7cmVxdWlyZW1lbnQsJm5ic3A7YnV0Jm5ic3A7dGhleSZuYnNwO2Nhbm5vdCZuYnNw O2RldGVybWluZSZuYnNwO3doZXRoZXImbmJzcDsmbmJzcDs8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+Jmd0OyZuYnNw O3RoZXJlJm5ic3A7aXMmbmJzcDthJm5ic3A7cmVxdWlyZW1lbnQuPC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPiZndDsm bmJzcDs8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+Jmd0OyZuYnNwO0lTUHMmbmJzcDtvbiZuYnNwO3RoZSZuYnNwO2xp c3QmbmJzcDstJm5ic3A7aXMmbmJzcDt0aGlzJm5ic3A7a2luZCZuYnNwO29mJm5ic3A7aXNzdWUm bmJzcDthJm5ic3A7cmVxdWlyZW1lbnQmbmJzcDtmb3ImbmJzcDt5b3U/PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPiZn dDsmbmJzcDs8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPlllcy4mbmJzcDtJdCZuYnNwO3dhcyZu YnNwO3RlcnJpYmxlJm5ic3A7dG8mbmJzcDtoYXZlJm5ic3A7dG8mbmJzcDtlbmFibGUmbmJzcDt1 bml2ZXJzYWwmbmJzcDtNU1MmbmJzcDtoYWNraW5nJm5ic3A7b248L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+MTAmbmJz cDswMDBzJm5ic3A7b2YmbmJzcDtBRFNMJm5ic3A7Y3VzdG9tZXJzJyZuYnNwO2Nvbm5lY3Rpb25z LCZuYnNwO2p1c3QmbmJzcDt0byZuYnNwO2RlYWwmbmJzcDt3aXRoJm5ic3A7YnJva2VuJm5ic3A7 UE1UVUQ8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+b24mbmJzcDtQUFBvRSZuYnNwO2Nvbm5lY3Rpb25zLCZuYnNwO2Nh dXNlZCZuYnNwO2J5Jm5ic3A7c29tZSZuYnNwO05BVHRpbmcmbmJzcDtsb2FkJm5ic3A7YmFsYW5j ZXJzJm5ic3A7d2hpY2gmbmJzcDticm9rZTwvRElWPg0KPERJVj5lbmQtdG8tZW5kJm5ic3A7dHJh bnNwYXJlbmN5Jm5ic3A7b2YmbmJzcDtJQ01QJm5ic3A7RGVzdCZuYnNwO1VucmVhY2hhYmxlJm5i c3A7UGFja2V0Jm5ic3A7VG9vJm5ic3A7Qmlncy4mbmJzcDtBPC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPklFVEYmbmJz cDtzcGVjaWZpZWQsJm5ic3A7TkFUbGVzcyZuYnNwO0lQdjYmbmJzcDtsb2FkJm5ic3A7YmFsYW5j aW5nJm5ic3A7c29sdXRpb24mbmJzcDt3b3VsZCZuYnNwO2JlJm5ic3A7Z3JlYXQuPC9ESVY+DQo8 RElWPjwvRElWPg0KPERJVj5SZWdhcmRzLDwvRElWPg0KPERJVj5NYXJrLjwvRElWPg0KPERJVj48 L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+Jmd0OyZuYnNwOzwvRElWPg0KPERJVj4mZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7T24mbmJzcDtNYXIm bmJzcDsyMywmbmJzcDsyMDA5LCZuYnNwO2F0Jm5ic3A7MzowMCZuYnNwO1BNLCZuYnNwO21hcmNl bG8mbmJzcDtiYWdudWxvJm5ic3A7YnJhdW4mbmJzcDt3cm90ZTo8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+Jmd0OyZu YnNwOzwvRElWPg0KPERJVj4mZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7Jmd0OyZuYnNwO0kmbmJzcDtjYW4mbmJzcDtzZWUm bmJzcDt0aGF0Jm5ic3A7dGhlJm5ic3A7cGFydGljdWxhciZuYnNwO3NvbHV0aW9uJm5ic3A7ZG9l c24ndCZuYnNwO2JlbG9uZyZuYnNwO3RvJm5ic3A7djZvcHMsJm5ic3A7YnV0Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7 PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPiZndDsmbmJzcDsmZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7d2hldGhlciZuYnNwO3RoZSZuYnNwO3F1 ZXN0aW9uJm5ic3A7d2hldGhlciZuYnNwO3Byb2JsZW0mbmJzcDtpcyZuYnNwO3JlYWwmbmJzcDtv ciZuYnNwO25vdCZuYnNwO2RvZXMmbmJzcDtzZWVtJm5ic3A7dG8mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDs8L0RJVj4N CjxESVY+Jmd0OyZuYnNwOyZndDsmbmJzcDtiZWxvbmcmbmJzcDt0byZuYnNwO3Y2b3BzLCZuYnNw O3JpZ2h0PzwvRElWPg0KPERJVj4mZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7Jmd0OyZuYnNwO0kmbmJzcDttZWFuLCZuYnNw O2NlcnRhaW5seSZuYnNwO21leHQmbmJzcDtjYW5ub3QmbmJzcDtoYXZlJm5ic3A7YSZuYnNwO3Bv c2l0aW9uJm5ic3A7b24mbmJzcDt3aGV0aGVyJm5ic3A7d2UmbmJzcDtuZWVkJm5ic3A7YSZuYnNw OyZuYnNwOzwvRElWPg0KPERJVj4mZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7Jmd0OyZuYnNwO2xvYWQmbmJzcDtiYWxhbmNp bmcmbmJzcDttZWNoYW5pc20mbmJzcDtmb3ImbmJzcDtzZXJ2ZXJzLiZuYnNwO1dlJm5ic3A7Y2Fu Jm5ic3A7Y2VydGlhbmx5Jm5ic3A7d29yayZuYnNwO29uJm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7PC9ESVY+DQo8RElW PiZndDsmbmJzcDsmZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7YWRhcHRpbmcmbmJzcDtNSVA2Jm5ic3A7dG8mbmJzcDtzdXBw b3J0Jm5ic3A7dGhpcywmbmJzcDthbmQmbmJzcDt3aGV0aGVyJm5ic3A7YSZuYnNwO01JUDYmbmJz cDtzb2x1dGlvbiZuYnNwO2lzJm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPiZndDsmbmJzcDsmZ3Q7 Jm5ic3A7ZmVhc2libGUmbmJzcDthbmQmbmJzcDtyZWFvc25hYmxlLCZuYnNwO2J1dCZuYnNwO2km bmJzcDtkb24ndCZuYnNwO3RoaW5rJm5ic3A7d2UmbmJzcDtjYW4mbmJzcDtkZXRlbXJpbmUmbmJz cDtpZiZuYnNwO3RoaXMmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDs8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+Jmd0OyZuYnNwOyZndDsmbmJz cDt3b3JrJm5ic3A7bmVlZHMmbmJzcDt0byZuYnNwO2JlJm5ic3A7ZG9uZTwvRElWPg0KPERJVj4m Z3Q7Jm5ic3A7Jmd0OzwvRElWPg0KPERJVj4mZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7Jmd0OzwvRElWPg0KPERJVj4mZ3Q7 Jm5ic3A7Jmd0OyZuYnNwO0ZyZWQmbmJzcDtCYWtlciZuYnNwO2VzY3JpYmk/PC9ESVY+DQo8RElW PiZndDsmbmJzcDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZuYnNwO1RoZSZuYnNwO2ZlZWRiYWNrJm5ic3A7aW4mbmJzcDt2 Nm9wcyZuYnNwO3dhcyZuYnNwO2FzJm5ic3A7SSZuYnNwO3N0YXRlZC4mbmJzcDtUaGV5Jm5ic3A7 dGhvdWdodCZuYnNwO3RoaXMmbmJzcDtkaXNjdXNzaW9uJm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7PC9ESVY+DQo8RElW PiZndDsmbmJzcDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZuYnNwO2JlbG9uZ2VkJm5ic3A7aW4mbmJzcDt5b3VyJm5ic3A7 d29ya2luZyZuYnNwO2dyb3VwLjwvRElWPg0KPERJVj4mZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7Jmd0OyZndDs8L0RJVj4N CjxESVY+Jmd0OyZuYnNwOyZndDsmZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7T24mbmJzcDtNYXImbmJzcDsyMywmbmJzcDsy MDA5LCZuYnNwO2F0Jm5ic3A7Mjo0OSZuYnNwO1BNLCZuYnNwO21hcmNlbG8mbmJzcDtiYWdudWxv Jm5ic3A7YnJhdW4mbmJzcDt3cm90ZTo8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+Jmd0OyZuYnNwOyZndDsmZ3Q7PC9E SVY+DQo8RElWPiZndDsmbmJzcDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmbmJzcDtGcmVkJm5ic3A7QmFrZXImbmJz cDtlc2NyaWJpPzwvRElWPg0KPERJVj4mZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OzwvRElWPg0K PERJVj4mZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZuYnNwO09uJm5ic3A7TWFyJm5ic3A7MjMs Jm5ic3A7MjAwOSwmbmJzcDthdCZuYnNwOzI6MTMmbmJzcDtQTSwmbmJzcDttYXJjZWxvJm5ic3A7 YmFnbnVsbyZuYnNwO2JyYXVuJm5ic3A7d3JvdGU6PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPiZndDsmbmJzcDsmZ3Q7 Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPiZndDsmbmJzcDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZu YnNwO0hpJm5ic3A7RnJlZCw8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+Jmd0OyZuYnNwOyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsm Z3Q7PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPiZndDsmbmJzcDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZuYnNwO3F1aWNr bHkmbmJzcDtjaGVja2VkJm5ic3A7dGhlJm5ic3A7ZHJhZnQsJm5ic3A7YW5kJm5ic3A7bXkmbmJz cDtmaXJzdCZuYnNwO3Rob3VnaHRzJm5ic3A7YXJlOjwvRElWPg0KPERJVj4mZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7Jmd0 OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmbmJzcDstJm5ic3A7c2VlbXMmbmJzcDtvbmx5Jm5ic3A7dG8mbmJz cDtkZWFsJm5ic3A7d2l0aCZuYnNwO21pcDYmbmJzcDthbmQmbmJzcDtub3QmbmJzcDttaXA0LCZu YnNwO3NvJm5ic3A7aSZuYnNwO2d1ZXNzJm5ic3A7dGhlJm5ic3A7bWlwNCZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOzwv RElWPg0KPERJVj4mZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmbmJzcDtndXlzJm5ic3A7 Y291bGQmbmJzcDtiZSZuYnNwO29mZiZuYnNwO3RoZSZuYnNwO2hvb2ssJm5ic3A7aWYmbmJzcDt0 aGV5Jm5ic3A7d2FudCZuYnNwO3RvPC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPiZndDsmbmJzcDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsm Z3Q7Jmd0OyZuYnNwOy0mbmJzcDtzZWVtcyZuYnNwO3RvJm5ic3A7ZmFsbCZuYnNwO3NvbWV3aGVy ZSZuYnNwO2JldHdlZW4mbmJzcDs2bWFuLCZuYnNwO21leHQmbmJzcDthbmQmbmJzcDt2Nm9wcy4u LjwvRElWPg0KPERJVj4mZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDs8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+ Jmd0OyZuYnNwOyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7SSZuYnNwO3RoaW5rJm5ic3A7dGhl Jm5ic3A7Zmlyc3QmbmJzcDtxdWVzdGlvbiZuYnNwO2lzJm5ic3A7d2hldGhlciZuYnNwO3dlJm5i c3A7bmVlZCZuYnNwO3RoaXMmbmJzcDtvciZuYnNwO25vdC4mbmJzcDtJJm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7PC9E SVY+DQo8RElWPiZndDsmbmJzcDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZuYnNwO3RoaW5rJm5ic3A7 dGhpcyZuYnNwO2lucHV0Jm5ic3A7c2hvdWxkJm5ic3A7Y29tZSZuYnNwO2Zyb20mbmJzcDtvcHMs Jm5ic3A7c28mbmJzcDt0aGF0Jm5ic3A7d291bGQmbmJzcDtiZSZuYnNwO3lvdSZuYnNwOzotKTwv RElWPg0KPERJVj4mZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OzwvRElWPg0KPERJVj4mZ3Q7Jm5i c3A7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZuYnNwO1RoZSZuYnNwO0NOTklDJm5ic3A7YXV0aG9ycyZuYnNw O2FyZSZuYnNwO2xvb2tpbmcmbmJzcDthdCZuYnNwO2l0Jm5ic3A7ZnJvbSZuYnNwO3RoZSZuYnNw O3BlcnNwZWN0aXZlJm5ic3A7b2YmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDs8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+Jmd0OyZuYnNwOyZn dDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmbmJzcDtDaGluZXNlJm5ic3A7dGVsZWNvbSZuYnNwO3JlcXVpcmVtZW50 cy4mbmJzcDtJJ2xsJm5ic3A7bGV0Jm5ic3A7dGhlbSZuYnNwO3RlbGwmbmJzcDttZSZuYnNwO0kn bSZuYnNwO3dyb25nLCZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOzwvRElWPg0KPERJVj4mZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7Jmd0OyZndDsm Z3Q7Jmd0OyZuYnNwO2J1dCZuYnNwO0kmbmJzcDtwcmVzdW1lJm5ic3A7dGhleSZuYnNwO3RoaW5r Jm5ic3A7dGhpcyZuYnNwO2lzJm5ic3A7aW1wb3J0YW50Jm5ic3A7Zm9yJm5ic3A7dGhlaXImbmJz cDtwYXJ0Jm5ic3A7b2YmbmJzcDt0aGUmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDs8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+Jmd0OyZuYnNw OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmbmJzcDt3b3JsZCZuYnNwO2F0Jm5ic3A7bWluaW11bS48L0RJVj4N CjxESVY+Jmd0OyZuYnNwOyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDs8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+Jmd0OyZuYnNwOyZn dDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OzwvRElWPg0KPERJVj4mZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7c28sJm5i c3A7d2hhdCZuYnNwO3dhcyZuYnNwO3RoZSZuYnNwO2ZlZWRiYWNrJm5ic3A7aW4mbmJzcDt2Nm9w cz88L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+Jmd0OyZuYnNwOyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZuYnNwO2kmbmJzcDttZWFuLCZu YnNwO3dhcyZuYnNwO2FueSZuYnNwO290aGVyJm5ic3A7cGVvcGxlJm5ic3A7b3RoZXImbmJzcDt0 aGFuJm5ic3A7dGhlJm5ic3A7YXV0aG9ycyZuYnNwO3RoYXQmbmJzcDt0aG91Z2h0Jm5ic3A7Jm5i c3A7PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPiZndDsmbmJzcDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmbmJzcDt0aGlzJm5ic3A7d2Fz Jm5ic3A7bmVlZGVkPzwvRElWPg0KPERJVj4mZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7PC9ESVY+DQo8 RElWPiZndDsmbmJzcDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDs8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+Jmd0OyZuYnNwOyZndDsmZ3Q7 Jmd0OzwvRElWPg0KPERJVj4mZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPiZndDsm bmJzcDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZuYnNwO0lmJm5ic3A7eW91Jm5ic3A7Z3V5cyZuYnNw O2RlY2lkZSZuYnNwO3dlJm5ic3A7bmVlZCZuYnNwO3NvZW10aGluZyZuYnNwO29uJm5ic3A7dGhl c2UmbmJzcDtsaW5lcywmbmJzcDt3ZSZuYnNwO2NhbiZuYnNwO3RoZW4mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDs8L0RJ Vj4NCjxESVY+Jmd0OyZuYnNwOyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7ZmlndXJlJm5ic3A7 b3V0Jm5ic3A7aWYmbmJzcDt3ZSZuYnNwO2RvJm5ic3A7aXQmbmJzcDtpbiZuYnNwO21leHQmbmJz cDtvciZuYnNwO2luJm5ic3A7Nm1hbiwmbmJzcDtvciZuYnNwO2JvdGgmbmJzcDtvZiZuYnNwO3Ro ZW0sJm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPiZndDsmbmJzcDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0 OyZuYnNwO2pvaW50bHkuPC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPiZndDsmbmJzcDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7PC9E SVY+DQo8RElWPiZndDsmbmJzcDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7SSZuYnNwO3RoaW5rJm5i c3A7b25lJm5ic3A7b2YmbmJzcDt0aG9zZSZuYnNwO21ha2VzJm5ic3A7bW9yZSZuYnNwO3NlbnNl Jm5ic3A7dGhhbiZuYnNwO3Y2b3BzLjwvRElWPg0KPERJVj4mZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7 Jmd0OzwvRElWPg0KPERJVj4mZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmbmJzcDtzb3Vu ZHMmbmJzcDtyZWFzb25hYmxlPzwvRElWPg0KPERJVj4mZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0 OyZndDs8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+Jmd0OyZuYnNwOyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7UmVn YXJkcywmbmJzcDttYXJjZWxvPC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPiZndDsmbmJzcDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7 Jmd0OzwvRElWPg0KPERJVj4mZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDs8L0RJVj4NCjxE SVY+Jmd0OyZuYnNwOyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7RnJlZCZuYnNwO0Jha2VyJm5i c3A7ZXNjcmliaT88L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+Jmd0OyZuYnNwOyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0 OyZuYnNwO0knZCZuYnNwO2xpa2UmbmJzcDt0byZuYnNwO2JyaW5nPC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPiZndDsm bmJzcDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDs8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+Jmd0OyZuYnNwOyZndDsm Z3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZuYnNwO2h0dHA6Ly90b29scy5pZXRmLm9yZy9odG1sL2RyYWZ0 LWx1by12Nm9wcy02bWFuLXNoaW02LWxiYW08L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+Jmd0OyZuYnNwOyZndDsmZ3Q7 Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZuYnNwOyJMb2FkJm5ic3A7QmFsYW5jaW5nJm5ic3A7YmFzZWQmbmJz cDtvbiZuYnNwO0lQdjYmbmJzcDtBbnljYXN0Jm5ic3A7YW5kJm5ic3A7cHNldWRvLU1vYmlsaXR5 IiwmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDs8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+Jmd0OyZuYnNwOyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7 Jmd0OyZuYnNwO1dhbm1pbmcmbmJzcDtMdW8sPC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPiZndDsmbmJzcDsmZ3Q7Jmd0 OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmbmJzcDtYaWFvRG9uZyZuYnNwO0xlZSwmbmJzcDtXZWkmbmJzcDtN YW8sJm5ic3A7TWVpJm5ic3A7V2FuZywmbmJzcDszLU5vdi0wOCw8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+Jmd0OyZu YnNwOyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZuYnNwOyZsdDtkcmFmdC1sdW8tdjZvcHMtNm1h bi1zaGltNi1sYmFtLTAwLnR4dCZndDs8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+Jmd0OyZuYnNwOyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0 OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OzwvRElWPg0KPERJVj4mZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsm Z3Q7Jm5ic3A7dG8mbmJzcDt5b3VyJm5ic3A7YXR0ZW50aW9uLiZuYnNwO1dlJm5ic3A7ZGlzY3Vz c2VkJm5ic3A7aXQmbmJzcDticmllZmx5Jm5ic3A7dGhpcyZuYnNwO21vcm5pbmcmbmJzcDtpbiZu YnNwOyZuYnNwOzwvRElWPg0KPERJVj4mZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7 Jm5ic3A7djZvcHMsJm5ic3A7YXMmbmJzcDtpdCZuYnNwO2lzJm5ic3A7aW50ZW5kZWQmbmJzcDth cyZuYnNwO2EmbmJzcDtsb2FkLXNoYXJpbmcmbmJzcDtzb2x1dGlvbi4mbmJzcDtUaGUmbmJzcDtz ZW5zZSZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOzwvRElWPg0KPERJVj4mZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZn dDsmZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7b2YmbmJzcDt0aGUmbmJzcDtyb29tJm5ic3A7d2FzJm5ic3A7dGhhdCZuYnNw O2l0Jm5ic3A7ZWl0aGVyJm5ic3A7YmVsb25nZWQmbmJzcDtpbiZuYnNwO01vYmlsZSZuYnNwO0lQ LCZuYnNwO29yJm5ic3A7dGhhdCZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOzwvRElWPg0KPERJVj4mZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7Jmd0 OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7d2UmbmJzcDtuZWVkJm5ic3A7dG8mbmJzcDt3b3Jr Jm5ic3A7dG9nZXRoZXImbmJzcDt3aXRoJm5ic3A7TW9iaWxlJm5ic3A7SVAmbmJzcDtvbiZuYnNw O2l0LjwvRElWPg0KPERJVj4mZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7PC9ESVY+ DQo8RElWPiZndDsmbmJzcDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmbmJzcDtIb3cmbmJzcDt3 b3VsZCZuYnNwO3lvdSZuYnNwO3JlY29tbWVuZCZuYnNwO3Byb2NlZWRpbmc/PC9ESVY+DQo8RElW PiZndDsmbmJzcDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDs8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+Jmd0OyZuYnNw OyZndDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPiZndDsmbmJzcDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsm Z3Q7PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPiZndDsmbmJzcDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDsmZ3Q7PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPiZn dDsmbmJzcDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OyZndDs8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+Jmd0OyZuYnNwOyZndDsmZ3Q7PC9ESVY+ DQo8RElWPiZndDsmbmJzcDsmZ3Q7Jmd0OzwvRElWPg0KPERJVj4mZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7Jmd0OzwvRElW Pg0KPERJVj4mZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPiZndDsmbmJzcDs8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+PC9E SVY+PC9GT05UPjwvRElWPjwvQk9EWT48L0hUTUw+DQo= --=====003_Dragon742880878072_=====-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Mar 24 07:29:14 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FD0E3A6A71 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 07:29:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.871 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.871 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.376, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 h-t9pQ6c9tCB for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 07:29:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88C8C3A6A56 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 07:29:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lm7cT-00052d-0q for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:28:45 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.71] (helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lm7cM-00052E-Mz for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:28:42 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,413,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="145846418" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Mar 2009 14:28:36 +0000 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2OESaXq002598; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 07:28:36 -0700 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2OESZUP026718; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:28:35 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.118]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:28:35 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:28:33 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <215BF73C-7C0D-4DAF-B399-7E812A8FB4A2@cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: AcmsASKJRBLOrVqKTNaQDbFsNNld6wAirfPg References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <215BF73C-7C0D-4DAF-B399-7E812A8FB4A2@cisco.com> From: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" To: "Fred Baker (fred)" , "james woodyatt" Cc: "IPv6 Operations" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Mar 2009 14:28:35.0134 (UTC) FILETIME=[D0911DE0:01C9AC8C] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1484; t=1237904916; x=1238768916; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=wbeebee@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Wes=20Beebee=20(wbeebee)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20comm ents |Sender:=20; bh=0Le6+Jo/aC9+HyUlfA0uHO1RL/DLY8fE6clogNXX92A=; b=T7UBz4HkvE9CKjzJyUD0C6B5Z93PZhg+6Z7aYOjT4tJffRMTlYjsFsv7Co MOLnJpbinSh0rGSPe9FkWMQa3JS6qxKshsbVdl5vQ/xz0av/eOEqdIY3JpCl VvsHf2fghu; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=wbeebee@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: CableLabs has decided in the eRouter specification (one particular instantiation of the CPE Router) that cable providers will never use the unnumbered model. Therefore, for the eRouter (which will only ever be used in a cable network), the unnumbered model is not required. However, DSL/3GPP networks will likely use the unnumbered model. If a CPE Router can be used in both networks (like a standalone CPE Router), then you'll need to=20 support both - because you can't be certain who will be using your router. Therefore, you'll need to support both unless you have linktype-specific knowledge that allows you to rule one out. - Wes -----Original Message----- From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker (fred) Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 5:47 PM To: james woodyatt Cc: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments On Mar 23, 2009, at 10:58 AM, james woodyatt wrote: > p2. If I were running an ISP, I'd be very suspicious of this=20 > requirement on CPE router vendors that they MUST support "at least one > of two" and not both WAN interface models. Fortunately, I'm on the=20 > other side of that fence, so I'm very pleased to see that I can refuse > to support the Unnumbered Model and still comply with Best Current=20 > Practice. That wasn't how I interpreted it. It said that you need to support both, as some ISPs will go one way and some the other. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Mar 24 07:58:21 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 833C928C2BC for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 07:58:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.547 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.547 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.052, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 FM2uzR9Gq2GY for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 07:58:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F1F428C299 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 07:58:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lm84O-0006yr-SU for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:57:36 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.72] (helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lm84E-0006xV-T8 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:57:29 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,413,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="146079949" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Mar 2009 14:57:12 +0000 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2OEvC8I001662; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 07:57:12 -0700 Received: from [10.21.108.181] ([10.21.108.181]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2OEvBIW000847; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:57:12 GMT Cc: "Fred Baker (fred)" , james woodyatt Message-Id: <2F30B075-D410-4EDD-A52F-AA9693D30DCA@cisco.com> From: Ralph Droms To: IPv6 Operations In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 07:57:11 -0700 References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <215BF73C-7C0D-4DAF-B399-7E812A8FB4A2@cisco.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1896; t=1237906632; x=1238770632; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=rdroms@cisco.com; z=From:=20Ralph=20Droms=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20comm ents |Sender:=20; bh=dzP4G0c6mV2RFlMgAz5sd9RWvjNrLfTyDgAoNLu8A9U=; b=fclwi6btqgLnzCWAuCdWc0JJCMHxgEzP94v6KoRmlnj2dWylFc0sHzTfOI iwg0lzUpvKqsZ+8f3l0Pl8XICZKWOEAvbnvxIUuW66Zzi5ogbxH6zcRI0srD fHozyQ9kPj; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=rdroms@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: And there needs to be a way in which the CPE router can determine what mode it is supposed to operate in ... no matter whether it is connected directly to a WAN link (cable or DSL or IPoSN) or to a link inside the subscriber network. - Ralph On Mar 24, 2009, at 7:28 AM 3/24/09, Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wrote: > CableLabs has decided in the eRouter specification (one particular > instantiation of the CPE Router) that cable providers will never use > the > unnumbered model. Therefore, for the eRouter (which will only > ever be used in a cable network), the unnumbered model is not > required. > > However, DSL/3GPP networks will likely use the unnumbered model. > > If a CPE Router can be used in both networks (like a standalone CPE > Router), then you'll need to > support both - because you can't be certain who will be using your > router. > > Therefore, you'll need to support both unless you have linktype- > specific > knowledge that allows you to rule one out. > > - Wes > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Fred Baker (fred) > Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 5:47 PM > To: james woodyatt > Cc: IPv6 Operations > Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments > > > On Mar 23, 2009, at 10:58 AM, james woodyatt wrote: > >> p2. If I were running an ISP, I'd be very suspicious of this >> requirement on CPE router vendors that they MUST support "at least >> one > >> of two" and not both WAN interface models. Fortunately, I'm on the >> other side of that fence, so I'm very pleased to see that I can >> refuse > >> to support the Unnumbered Model and still comply with Best Current >> Practice. > > That wasn't how I interpreted it. It said that you need to support > both, > as some ISPs will go one way and some the other. > > From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Mar 24 10:07:22 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4443E28C1BF for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:07:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.172 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.172 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.277, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 BojZicWDnwU8 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:07:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B01028C307 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:07:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmA3R-000Ema-JN for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:04:45 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.71] (helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmA3F-000ElT-P8 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:04:39 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,413,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="145937375" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Mar 2009 17:04:33 +0000 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2OH4Xla009370; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:04:33 -0700 Received: from dhcp-56c8.meeting.ietf.org (sjc-vpn7-1782.cisco.com [10.21.150.246]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2OH4WvT003875; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:04:32 GMT Cc: "Mark Smith" , "IPv6 Operations" , "mext-chairs" , "mip4-chairs" , "Kurt Erik Lindqvist" , "RonBonica" , "mext-ads" , "draft-luo-v6ops-6man-shim6-lbam" Message-Id: From: Fred Baker To: "luowanming" In-Reply-To: <437903642.25246@cnnic.cn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: Load Balancing for Mobile IP Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 10:04:32 -0700 References: , <49C7FB72.5020104@it.uc3m.es>, <0C2F04C3-1091-4C82-9F10-0F0675508A93@cisco.com>, <49C80401.1040809@it.uc3m.es>, , <49C80678.6080508@it.uc3m.es>, <5801C1F3-B267-41EC-8A44-11C6A419851F@cisco.com>, <437894020.05666@cnnic.cn> <437903642.25246@cnnic.cn> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=520; t=1237914273; x=1238778273; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20Load=20Balancing=20for=20Mobile=20IP |Sender:=20; bh=GlS4LU5oNkUTPIE7JxGh3cnRAgs1NfzPNZoH4VpFqmM=; b=EY8ZKFBODFvVgtCuAfVq944djDWKFEHmEKSKekGNuZZ9XNXMfY7y0JMveU kLQnG1y6jn26S6p6mwu3feF/3M4w7/smFtZokUGh/YgK0H/6Y/EZTsyQJkWE dylmsNsSgh; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Mar 24, 2009, at 7:07 AM, luowanming wrote: > So, what is the next step for this draft? Maybe it needs some > modifications according to comments? or move to mext WG? or jointly > worked by v6ops and Mobile IP? In this context, I would expect v6ops to provide a problem statement, and mext to provide a solution. I think Mark summarized the problem statement, although Marcello may want it in more detail. In my opinion, the logical next step for a proposed solution is discussion in mext. From wagner@inovx.com Tue Mar 24 14:11:33 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B16343A6B1E; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:11:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -52.165 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-52.165 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, FRT_ROLEX=3.878, HELO_DYNAMIC_HCC=4.295, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 AoMyf6eIxSa2; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:11:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from a83-132-242-48.cpe.netcabo.pt (a83-132-242-48.cpe.netcabo.pt [83.132.242.48]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4F38C3A6989; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:11:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: X-Originating-IP: 221.76.30.126 by 251.122.192.97; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:03:16 -0400 To: "Karina Ashby" From: "Toby Puckett" Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:12:16 -0500 Subject: The affordable watch alternative Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Hello Karina Looking for a Ro lex? How about getting two, one for you and one for your spouse? http://green1279.gigazu.net Take advantage of our winter specials and get yourself Ro lex watch that you've always wanted! http://green1279.gigazu.net Our Ro lex watches have perfect weight and feel same as orginal. Sincerely, Mr Ashby From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Mar 24 18:29:42 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94D353A69B8 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:29:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Quarantine-ID: X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER, Duplicate header field: "Message-ID" X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.261 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.261 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.298, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.803, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 x-g+h-qrk251 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:29:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7856A3A67D1 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:29:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmHr8-000IsF-IQ for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 01:24:34 +0000 Received: from [159.226.7.146] (helo=cnnic.cn) by psg.com with smtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmHr3-000Irx-AL for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 01:24:32 +0000 Received: (eyou send program); Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:24:27 +0800 Message-ID: <437944267.31274@cnnic.cn> X-EYOUMAIL-SMTPAUTH: luowanming@cnnic.cn Received: from unknown (HELO lenovo-5be562e5) (127.0.0.1) by 127.0.0.1 with SMTP; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:24:27 +0800 Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:24:28 +0800 From: "luowanming" To: "Fred Baker" Cc: "Mark Smith" , "IPv6 Operations" , "mext-chairs" , "mip4-chairs" , "Kurt Erik Lindqvist" , "RonBonica" , "mext-ads" References: , <49C7FB72.5020104@it.uc3m.es>, <0C2F04C3-1091-4C82-9F10-0F0675508A93@cisco.com>, <49C80401.1040809@it.uc3m.es>, , <49C80678.6080508@it.uc3m.es>, <5801C1F3-B267-41EC-8A44-11C6A419851F@cisco.com>, <437894020.05666@cnnic.cn>, <437903642.25246@cnnic.cn>, <437914297.05677@cnnic.cn> Subject: Re: Re: Load Balancing for Mobile IP Message-ID: <200903250924277340751@cnnic.cn> X-mailer: Foxmail 6, 14, 103, 24 [cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====003_Dragon136172067720_=====" Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --=====003_Dragon136172067720_===== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 SGkgRnJlZCwgDQoNCkFjY29yZGluZyB0byB5b3VyIG9waW5pb24sIGRvIHdlIG5lZWQgYSBuZXcg ZHJhZnQgdG8gcHJvdmlkZSBhIHByb2JsZW0gc3RhdGVtZW50PyBJZiB0cnVlLCBJIHdhbnQgdG8g d29yayBpdCB0b2dldGhlciB3aXRoIE1hcmsgYW5kIHlvdS4NCg0KUmVnYXJkcywNCldhbm1pbmcg THVvDQoNCg0KDQoNCg0Kt6K8/sjLo7ogRnJlZCBCYWtlciANCreiy83Ksbzko7ogMjAwOS0wMy0y NSAgMDE6MDQ6NTcgDQrK1bz+yMujuiBsdW93YW5taW5nIA0Ks63LzaO6IE1hcmsgU21pdGg7IElQ djYgT3BlcmF0aW9uczsgbWV4dC1jaGFpcnM7IG1pcDQtY2hhaXJzOyBLdXJ0IEVyaWsgTGluZHF2 aXN0OyBSb25Cb25pY2E7IG1leHQtYWRzOyBkcmFmdC1sdW8tdjZvcHMtNm1hbi1zaGltNi1sYmFt IA0K1vfM4qO6IFJlOiBMb2FkIEJhbGFuY2luZyBmb3IgTW9iaWxlIElQIA0KIA0KT24gTWFyIDI0 LCAyMDA5LCBhdCA3OjA3IEFNLCBsdW93YW5taW5nIHdyb3RlOg0KPiBTbywgd2hhdCBpcyB0aGUg bmV4dCBzdGVwIGZvciB0aGlzIGRyYWZ0PyBNYXliZSBpdCBuZWVkcyBzb21lICANCj4gbW9kaWZp Y2F0aW9ucyBhY2NvcmRpbmcgdG8gY29tbWVudHM/IG9yIG1vdmUgdG8gbWV4dCBXRz8gb3Igam9p bnRseSAgDQo+IHdvcmtlZCBieSB2Nm9wcyBhbmQgTW9iaWxlIElQPw0KSW4gdGhpcyBjb250ZXh0 LCBJIHdvdWxkIGV4cGVjdCB2Nm9wcyB0byBwcm92aWRlIGEgcHJvYmxlbSBzdGF0ZW1lbnQsICAN CmFuZCBtZXh0IHRvIHByb3ZpZGUgYSBzb2x1dGlvbi4gSSB0aGluayBNYXJrIHN1bW1hcml6ZWQg dGhlIHByb2JsZW0gIA0Kc3RhdGVtZW50LCBhbHRob3VnaCBNYXJjZWxsbyBtYXkgd2FudCBpdCBp biBtb3JlIGRldGFpbC4gSW4gbXkgIA0Kb3BpbmlvbiwgdGhlIGxvZ2ljYWwgbmV4dCBzdGVwIGZv ciBhIHByb3Bvc2VkIHNvbHV0aW9uIGlzIGRpc2N1c3Npb24gIA0KaW4gbWV4dC4NCg== --=====003_Dragon136172067720_===== Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PCFET0NUWVBFIEhUTUwgUFVCTElDICItLy9XM0MvL0RURCBIVE1MIDQuMCBUcmFuc2l0aW9uYWwv L0VOIj4NCjxIVE1MPjxIRUFEPg0KPE1FVEEgaHR0cC1lcXVpdj1Db250ZW50LVR5cGUgY29udGVu dD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PWdiMjMxMiI+DQo8TUVUQSBjb250ZW50PSJNU0hUTUwgNi4w MC42MDAwLjE2ODA5IiBuYW1lPUdFTkVSQVRPUj4NCjxTVFlMRT5AZm9udC1mYWNlIHsNCglmb250 LWZhbWlseTogy87M5TsNCn0NCkBmb250LWZhY2Ugew0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiBWZXJkYW5hOw0K fQ0KQGZvbnQtZmFjZSB7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IEDLzszlOw0KfQ0KQHBhZ2UgU2VjdGlvbjEg e3NpemU6IDU5NS4zcHQgODQxLjlwdDsgbWFyZ2luOiA3Mi4wcHQgOTAuMHB0IDcyLjBwdCA5MC4w cHQ7IGxheW91dC1ncmlkOiAxNS42cHQ7IH0NClAuTXNvTm9ybWFsIHsNCglURVhULUpVU1RJRlk6 IGludGVyLWlkZW9ncmFwaDsgRk9OVC1TSVpFOiAxMC41cHQ7IE1BUkdJTjogMGNtIDBjbSAwcHQ7 IEZPTlQtRkFNSUxZOiAiVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuIjsgVEVYVC1BTElHTjoganVzdGlmeQ0KfQ0K TEkuTXNvTm9ybWFsIHsNCglURVhULUpVU1RJRlk6IGludGVyLWlkZW9ncmFwaDsgRk9OVC1TSVpF OiAxMC41cHQ7IE1BUkdJTjogMGNtIDBjbSAwcHQ7IEZPTlQtRkFNSUxZOiAiVGltZXMgTmV3IFJv bWFuIjsgVEVYVC1BTElHTjoganVzdGlmeQ0KfQ0KRElWLk1zb05vcm1hbCB7DQoJVEVYVC1KVVNU SUZZOiBpbnRlci1pZGVvZ3JhcGg7IEZPTlQtU0laRTogMTAuNXB0OyBNQVJHSU46IDBjbSAwY20g MHB0OyBGT05ULUZBTUlMWTogIlRpbWVzIE5ldyBSb21hbiI7IFRFWFQtQUxJR046IGp1c3RpZnkN Cn0NCkE6bGluayB7DQoJQ09MT1I6IGJsdWU7IFRFWFQtREVDT1JBVElPTjogdW5kZXJsaW5lDQp9 DQpTUEFOLk1zb0h5cGVybGluayB7DQoJQ09MT1I6IGJsdWU7IFRFWFQtREVDT1JBVElPTjogdW5k ZXJsaW5lDQp9DQpBOnZpc2l0ZWQgew0KCUNPTE9SOiBwdXJwbGU7IFRFWFQtREVDT1JBVElPTjog dW5kZXJsaW5lDQp9DQpTUEFOLk1zb0h5cGVybGlua0ZvbGxvd2VkIHsNCglDT0xPUjogcHVycGxl OyBURVhULURFQ09SQVRJT046IHVuZGVybGluZQ0KfQ0KU1BBTi5FbWFpbFN0eWxlMTcgew0KCUZP TlQtV0VJR0hUOiBub3JtYWw7IENPTE9SOiB3aW5kb3d0ZXh0OyBGT05ULVNUWUxFOiBub3JtYWw7 IEZPTlQtRkFNSUxZOiBWZXJkYW5hOyBURVhULURFQ09SQVRJT046IG5vbmU7IG1zby1zdHlsZS10 eXBlOiBwZXJzb25hbC1jb21wb3NlDQp9DQpESVYuU2VjdGlvbjEgew0KCXBhZ2U6IFNlY3Rpb24x DQp9DQpVTktOT1dOIHsNCglGT05ULVNJWkU6IDEwcHQNCn0NCkJMT0NLUVVPVEUgew0KCU1BUkdJ Ti1UT1A6IDBweDsgTUFSR0lOLUJPVFRPTTogMHB4OyBNQVJHSU4tTEVGVDogMmVtDQp9DQpPTCB7 DQoJTUFSR0lOLVRPUDogMHB4OyBNQVJHSU4tQk9UVE9NOiAwcHgNCn0NClVMIHsNCglNQVJHSU4t VE9QOiAwcHg7IE1BUkdJTi1CT1RUT006IDBweA0KfQ0KPC9TVFlMRT4NCjwvSEVBRD4NCjxCT0RZ IHN0eWxlPSJGT05ULVNJWkU6IDEwcHQ7IEZPTlQtRkFNSUxZOiB2ZXJkYW5hIj4NCjxESVY+PEZP TlQgZmFjZT1WZXJkYW5hIGNvbG9yPSMwMDAwODAgc2l6ZT0yPkhpJm5ic3A7RnJlZCwgPC9GT05U PjwvRElWPg0KPERJVj48Rk9OVCBmYWNlPVZlcmRhbmEgY29sb3I9IzAwMDA4MCBzaXplPTI+PC9G T05UPiZuYnNwOzwvRElWPg0KPERJVj48Rk9OVCBmYWNlPVZlcmRhbmEgY29sb3I9IzAwMDA4MCBz aXplPTI+QWNjb3JkaW5nIHRvIHlvdXIgb3BpbmlvbiwgZG8gd2UgDQpuZWVkIGEgbmV3IGRyYWZ0 IHRvIHByb3ZpZGUgYSBwcm9ibGVtIHN0YXRlbWVudD8gSWYgdHJ1ZSwgSSB3YW50IHRvIHdvcmsg aXQgDQp0b2dldGhlciB3aXRoIE1hcmsgYW5kIHlvdS48L0ZPTlQ+PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPjxGT05U IGNvbG9yPSMwMDAwODA+PC9GT05UPiZuYnNwOzwvRElWPg0KPERJVj48Rk9OVCBjb2xvcj0jMDAw MDgwPlJlZ2FyZHMsPC9GT05UPjwvRElWPg0KPERJVj48Rk9OVCBjb2xvcj0jMDAwMDgwPldhbm1p bmcgTHVvPC9GT05UPjwvRElWPg0KPERJVj48Rk9OVCBjb2xvcj0jMDAwMDgwPjwvRk9OVD4mbmJz cDs8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+PEZPTlQgY29sb3I9IzAwMDA4MD48L0ZPTlQ+Jm5ic3A7PC9ESVY+DQo8 RElWPg0KPERJVj48Rk9OVCBmYWNlPVZlcmRhbmEgY29sb3I9I2MwYzBjMCBzaXplPTI+PC9GT05U PjwvRElWPjxGT05UIGZhY2U9VmVyZGFuYSANCmNvbG9yPSMwMDAwODAgc2l6ZT0yPg0KPEhSPg0K PC9GT05UPjwvRElWPg0KPERJVj48Rk9OVCBmYWNlPVZlcmRhbmEgc2l6ZT0yPjxTVFJPTkc+t6K8 /sjLo7o8L1NUUk9ORz4gRnJlZCBCYWtlciA8L0ZPTlQ+PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPjxGT05UIGZhY2U9 VmVyZGFuYSBzaXplPTI+PFNUUk9ORz63osvNyrG85KO6PC9TVFJPTkc+IDIwMDktMDMtMjUmbmJz cDsgMDE6MDQ6NTcgDQo8L0ZPTlQ+PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPjxGT05UIGZhY2U9VmVyZGFuYSBzaXpl PTI+PFNUUk9ORz7K1bz+yMujujwvU1RST05HPiBsdW93YW5taW5nIDwvRk9OVD48L0RJVj4NCjxE SVY+PEZPTlQgZmFjZT1WZXJkYW5hIHNpemU9Mj48U1RST05HPrOty82jujwvU1RST05HPiBNYXJr IFNtaXRoOyBJUHY2IE9wZXJhdGlvbnM7IA0KbWV4dC1jaGFpcnM7IG1pcDQtY2hhaXJzOyBLdXJ0 IEVyaWsgTGluZHF2aXN0OyBSb25Cb25pY2E7IG1leHQtYWRzOyANCmRyYWZ0LWx1by12Nm9wcy02 bWFuLXNoaW02LWxiYW0gPC9GT05UPjwvRElWPg0KPERJVj48Rk9OVCBmYWNlPVZlcmRhbmEgc2l6 ZT0yPjxTVFJPTkc+1vfM4qO6PC9TVFJPTkc+IFJlOiBMb2FkIEJhbGFuY2luZyBmb3IgDQpNb2Jp bGUgSVAgPC9GT05UPjwvRElWPg0KPERJVj48Rk9OVCBmYWNlPVZlcmRhbmEgc2l6ZT0yPjwvRk9O VD4gPC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPjxGT05UIGZhY2U9VmVyZGFuYSBzaXplPTI+DQo8RElWPjwvRElWPg0K PERJVj5PbiZuYnNwO01hciZuYnNwOzI0LCZuYnNwOzIwMDksJm5ic3A7YXQmbmJzcDs3OjA3Jm5i c3A7QU0sJm5ic3A7bHVvd2FubWluZyZuYnNwO3dyb3RlOjwvRElWPg0KPERJVj48L0RJVj4NCjxE SVY+Jmd0OyZuYnNwO1NvLCZuYnNwO3doYXQmbmJzcDtpcyZuYnNwO3RoZSZuYnNwO25leHQmbmJz cDtzdGVwJm5ic3A7Zm9yJm5ic3A7dGhpcyZuYnNwO2RyYWZ0PyZuYnNwO01heWJlJm5ic3A7aXQm bmJzcDtuZWVkcyZuYnNwO3NvbWUmbmJzcDsmbmJzcDs8L0RJVj4NCjxESVY+Jmd0OyZuYnNwO21v ZGlmaWNhdGlvbnMmbmJzcDthY2NvcmRpbmcmbmJzcDt0byZuYnNwO2NvbW1lbnRzPyZuYnNwO29y Jm5ic3A7bW92ZSZuYnNwO3RvJm5ic3A7bWV4dCZuYnNwO1dHPyZuYnNwO29yJm5ic3A7am9pbnRs eSZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOzwvRElWPg0KPERJVj4mZ3Q7Jm5ic3A7d29ya2VkJm5ic3A7YnkmbmJzcDt2 Nm9wcyZuYnNwO2FuZCZuYnNwO01vYmlsZSZuYnNwO0lQPzwvRElWPg0KPERJVj48L0RJVj4NCjxE SVY+SW4mbmJzcDt0aGlzJm5ic3A7Y29udGV4dCwmbmJzcDtJJm5ic3A7d291bGQmbmJzcDtleHBl Y3QmbmJzcDt2Nm9wcyZuYnNwO3RvJm5ic3A7cHJvdmlkZSZuYnNwO2EmbmJzcDtwcm9ibGVtJm5i c3A7c3RhdGVtZW50LCZuYnNwOyZuYnNwOzwvRElWPg0KPERJVj5hbmQmbmJzcDttZXh0Jm5ic3A7 dG8mbmJzcDtwcm92aWRlJm5ic3A7YSZuYnNwO3NvbHV0aW9uLiZuYnNwO0kmbmJzcDt0aGluayZu YnNwO01hcmsmbmJzcDtzdW1tYXJpemVkJm5ic3A7dGhlJm5ic3A7cHJvYmxlbSZuYnNwOyZuYnNw OzwvRElWPg0KPERJVj5zdGF0ZW1lbnQsJm5ic3A7YWx0aG91Z2gmbmJzcDtNYXJjZWxsbyZuYnNw O21heSZuYnNwO3dhbnQmbmJzcDtpdCZuYnNwO2luJm5ic3A7bW9yZSZuYnNwO2RldGFpbC4mbmJz cDtJbiZuYnNwO215Jm5ic3A7Jm5ic3A7PC9ESVY+DQo8RElWPm9waW5pb24sJm5ic3A7dGhlJm5i c3A7bG9naWNhbCZuYnNwO25leHQmbmJzcDtzdGVwJm5ic3A7Zm9yJm5ic3A7YSZuYnNwO3Byb3Bv c2VkJm5ic3A7c29sdXRpb24mbmJzcDtpcyZuYnNwO2Rpc2N1c3Npb24mbmJzcDsmbmJzcDs8L0RJ Vj4NCjxESVY+aW4mbmJzcDttZXh0LjwvRElWPjwvRk9OVD48L0RJVj48L0JPRFk+PC9IVE1MPg0K --=====003_Dragon136172067720_=====-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Mar 24 18:34:20 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB96A3A67D1 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:34:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.879 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.879 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.384, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 MbZmibhuORjM for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:34:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B7C3A3A6A64 for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:34:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmI0g-000JZe-EG for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 01:34:26 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.71] (helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmI0b-000JZ9-1c for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 01:34:23 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,416,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="146165929" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Mar 2009 01:34:20 +0000 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2P1YKs9012660; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:34:20 -0700 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2P1YD8r011776; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 01:34:20 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.40]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:34:18 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:34:14 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <2F30B075-D410-4EDD-A52F-AA9693D30DCA@cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: AcmskUazPTjo4qwyT8iIXv/BJpPq5AAVYhAw References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <215BF73C-7C0D-4DAF-B399-7E812A8FB4A2@cisco.com> <2F30B075-D410-4EDD-A52F-AA9693D30DCA@cisco.com> From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" To: "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" , "IPv6 Operations" Cc: "Fred Baker (fred)" , "james woodyatt" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Mar 2009 01:34:18.0830 (UTC) FILETIME=[D0DD6EE0:01C9ACE9] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1494; t=1237944860; x=1238808860; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20comm ents |Sender:=20; bh=6Xrml+s+5vlie8bpsAkicfYNySjDtYbn05wqqWH4TBU=; b=BMFzG5NlLeLa43Ne2rSnV9pihC9t9jtSweZmNbXgbmWvFmo+zp6paPNggw 8xo4loOoMitJ4o/IpofycCTpZXqRPTJ0hbqVDJ9jFDjfCKOG5MeVs3Rsj4Mr +MPYgQMvz1; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=shemant@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Ralph, Note the our draft covers both an embedded CPE Rtr and a standalone CPE Rtr. If the CPE Rtr is embedded in a cable or DSL modem, or 3GPP legacy data device, then the L2 of the modem or 3GPP device can easily signal the upper layers of the Rtr to be configured for cable, DSL, or 3GPP WAN interface setup.=20 For a standalone CPE Rtr, if one reads the draft, one will see that if the CPE Rtr WAN interface sees an RA with M and O bits set when no PPP link has been established prior to seeing this RA, it's a cable deployment. If an RA is seen after PPP negotiation, it's a DSL deployment. These are some ideas we have in mind thus far. We can certainly look into a flow chart for such provisioning in the standalone rtr case. Alternatively, for the standalone case, we may leave it to the vendors to differentiate between their products as to how automatic is their standalone CPE Rtr provisioning. =20 Hemant -----Original Message----- From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ralph Droms (rdroms) Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 10:57 AM To: IPv6 Operations Cc: Fred Baker (fred); james woodyatt Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments And there needs to be a way in which the CPE router can determine what =20 mode it is supposed to operate in ... no matter whether it is =20 connected directly to a WAN link (cable or DSL or IPoSN) or to a link =20 inside the subscriber network. - Ralph From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Mar 24 21:59:38 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4ED53A67FE for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:59:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.1 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 oIdEyeWCG7Jb for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:59:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F7D13A67FD for ; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:59:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmL9R-0004U4-It for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 04:55:41 +0000 Received: from [2001:1888:0:1:230:48ff:fe5b:3b50] (helo=outgoing01.lava.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmL9M-0004Tl-6A for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 04:55:39 +0000 Received: from malasada.lava.net (malasada.lava.net [64.65.64.17]) by outgoing01.lava.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 168F2D0061; Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:55:25 -1000 (HST) Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:55:24 -1000 (HST) From: Antonio Querubin To: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" cc: "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" , IPv6 Operations , "Fred Baker (fred)" , james woodyatt Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <215BF73C-7C0D-4DAF-B399-7E812A8FB4A2@cisco.com> <2F30B075-D410-4EDD-A52F-AA9693D30DCA@cisco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Tue, 24 Mar 2009, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote: > For a standalone CPE Rtr, if one reads the draft, one will see that if > the CPE Rtr WAN interface sees an RA with M and O bits set when no PPP > link has been established prior to seeing this RA, it's a cable > deployment. It's hard to figure out where in the draft the deployment type is actually specified. Regardless, the above may not be a good assumption. Our DSL deployment here for example currently uses SLAAC and RAs. PD is currently done manually. Eventually we want to use DHCPv6 for PD to the CPE router. We don't use PPP at all for either IPv4 or IPv6 on DSL. > If an RA is seen after PPP negotiation, it's a DSL deployment. So I wonder, what does the deployment 'type' have anything to do with the CPE Router behavior? Antonio Querubin whois: AQ7-ARIN From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 25 07:54:33 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93D2F28C11A for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 07:54:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.398 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.811, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 OUl9f51-NOLp for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 07:54:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91B853A696F for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 07:54:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmUQQ-0005FN-UH for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:49:50 +0000 Received: from [217.169.121.20] (helo=GRFEDG701RM001.telecomitalia.it) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmUQJ-0005ET-2v for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:49:47 +0000 Received: from GRFHUB706RM001.griffon.local (10.19.3.71) by GRFEDG701RM001.telecomitalia.it (10.173.88.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.358.0; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:52:16 +0100 Received: from GRFMBX702RM001.griffon.local ([10.19.3.19]) by GRFHUB706RM001.griffon.local ([10.19.9.239]) with mapi; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:49:38 +0100 From: Maglione Roberta To: "'Hemant Singh (shemant)'" , "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" , IPv6 Operations CC: "Fred Baker (fred)" , james woodyatt , Wojciech Dec Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:49:37 +0100 Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: AcmskUazPTjo4qwyT8iIXv/BJpPq5AAVYhAwABxLSKA= Message-ID: References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <215BF73C-7C0D-4DAF-B399-7E812A8FB4A2@cisco.com> <2F30B075-D410-4EDD-A52F-AA9693D30DCA@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: 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 Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Hello Hemant, > For a standalone CPE Rtr, if one reads the draft, one will see that if > the CPE Rtr WAN interface sees an RA with M and O bits set when no PPP > link has been established prior to seeing this RA, it's a cable > deployment. If an RA is seen after PPP negotiation, it's a DSL > deployment. I'm not sure the criteria you mentioned is enough to identify a DSL CPE: in= DSL environment you can have either PPP or IP Sessions. In case of IP Sess= ions if SLAAC is used to number the WAN link you will see RA with M and O b= its set. Best Regards, Roberta -----Original Message----- From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Hemant Singh (shemant) Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 2:34 AM To: Ralph Droms (rdroms); IPv6 Operations Cc: Fred Baker (fred); james woodyatt Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Ralph, Note the our draft covers both an embedded CPE Rtr and a standalone CPE Rtr. If the CPE Rtr is embedded in a cable or DSL modem, or 3GPP legacy data device, then the L2 of the modem or 3GPP device can easily signal the upper layers of the Rtr to be configured for cable, DSL, or 3GPP WAN interface setup. For a standalone CPE Rtr, if one reads the draft, one will see that if the CPE Rtr WAN interface sees an RA with M and O bits set when no PPP link has been established prior to seeing this RA, it's a cable deployment. If an RA is seen after PPP negotiation, it's a DSL deployment. These are some ideas we have in mind thus far. We can certainly look into a flow chart for such provisioning in the standalone rtr case. Alternatively, for the standalone case, we may leave it to the vendors to differentiate between their products as to how automatic is their standalone CPE Rtr provisioning. Hemant -----Original Message----- From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ralph Droms (rdroms) Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 10:57 AM To: IPv6 Operations Cc: Fred Baker (fred); james woodyatt Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments And there needs to be a way in which the CPE router can determine what mode it is supposed to operate in ... no matter whether it is connected directly to a WAN link (cable or DSL or IPoSN) or to a link inside the subscriber network. - Ralph Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle per= sone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dall= a conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abb= iate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di dar= ne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione= , Grazie. This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged = information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, pri= nting or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended r= ecipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sen= der by return e-mail, Thanks. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 25 08:06:21 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EE6628C15C for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:06:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.947 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.947 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.503, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 kw713doUptFg for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:06:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21D1328C139 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:06:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmUg1-0007HY-LO for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:05:57 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.71] (helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmUfw-0007H0-Fl for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:05:54 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,419,1233532800"; d="scan'208,217";a="146423535" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Mar 2009 15:05:15 +0000 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2PF5E1P012068; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:05:14 -0700 Received: from dhcp-56c8.meeting.ietf.org ([10.21.72.80]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2PF5Dcv013956; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:05:13 GMT Cc: "Mark Smith" , "IPv6 Operations" , "mext-chairs" , "mip4-chairs" , "Kurt Erik Lindqvist" , "RonBonica" , "mext-ads" Message-Id: <99BA145C-963E-40D6-B0E6-D4C6F0EE8286@cisco.com> From: Fred Baker To: "luowanming" In-Reply-To: <437944267.31274@cnnic.cn> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-28--159207612 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: Load Balancing for Mobile IP Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:05:13 -0700 References: , <49C7FB72.5020104@it.uc3m.es>, <0C2F04C3-1091-4C82-9F10-0F0675508A93@cisco.com>, <49C80401.1040809@it.uc3m.es>, , <49C80678.6080508@it.uc3m.es>, <5801C1F3-B267-41EC-8A44-11C6A419851F@cisco.com>, <437894020.05666@cnnic.cn>, <437903642.25246@cnnic.cn>, <437914297.05677@cnnic.cn> <437944267.31274@cnnic.cn> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=5049; t=1237993514; x=1238857514; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20Load=20Balancing=20for=20Mobile=20IP |Sender:=20; bh=9rS+prlXeWU34ol54HmywoG186flp1BgWtclZjlPCoE=; b=srH2J38m6BihbeLg447Cnr7utW6cgblwmdDHrQWmq+nerzEmisPcbEVLN3 0gyDitmYSnwsbDMjnXv3XAFvFNjdQ10HqXHABydbeEi45HByEFQkKoieMlFW 4xgIsD3cM4boR66ujqNW2K2cvmvp4GuWt/+1gygQH9mYIu4V94Lkk=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: --Apple-Mail-28--159207612 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think the problem is well-enough described. You really need to talk =20= with Marcello On Mar 24, 2009, at 6:24 PM, luowanming wrote: > Hi Fred, > > According to your opinion, do we need a new draft to provide a =20 > problem statement? If true, I want to work it together with Mark and =20= > you. > > Regards, > Wanming Luo > > > =B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB=A3=BA Fred Baker > =B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4=A3=BA 2009-03-25 01:04:57 > =CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB=A3=BA luowanming > =B3=AD=CB=CD=A3=BA Mark Smith; IPv6 Operations; mext-chairs; = mip4-chairs; Kurt =20 > Erik Lindqvist; RonBonica; mext-ads; draft-luo-v6ops-6man-shim6-lbam > =D6=F7=CC=E2=A3=BA Re: Load Balancing for Mobile IP > On Mar 24, 2009, at 7:07 AM, luowanming wrote: > > So, what is the next step for this draft? Maybe it needs some > > modifications according to comments? or move to mext WG? or jointly > > worked by v6ops and Mobile IP? > In this context, I would expect v6ops to provide a problem statement, > and mext to provide a solution. I think Mark summarized the problem > statement, although Marcello may want it in more detail. In my > opinion, the logical next step for a proposed solution is discussion > in mext. --Apple-Mail-28--159207612 Content-Type: text/html; charset=GB2312 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think the problem is = well-enough described. You really need to talk with = Marcello

On Mar 24, 2009, at 6:24 PM, luowanming = wrote:

Hi Fred,
 
According to your opinion, = do we need a new draft to provide a problem statement? If true, I want = to work it together with Mark and you.
 
Regards,
Wanming Luo
 
 
=B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB=A3=BA Fred = Baker
=B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4=A3=BA 2009-03-25  = 01:04:57
=CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB=A3=BA luowanming
<= font face=3D"Verdana" size=3D"2">=B3=AD=CB=CD=A3=BA Mark Smith; IPv6 = Operations; mext-chairs; mip4-chairs; Kurt Erik Lindqvist; RonBonica; = mext-ads; draft-luo-v6ops-6man-shim6-lbam
=D6=F7=CC=E2=A3=BA Re: Load Balancing for = Mobile IP
On Mar 24, 2009, at 7:= 07 AM, luowanming wrote:
> So,=  what is the next step for this dr= aft? Maybe it needs some  
>&nb= sp;modifications according to comments? or move&n= bsp;to mext WG? or jointly  
>&= nbsp;worked by v6ops and Mobile IP?
In this context, I would expect v6op= s to provide a problem statement,  
and mext to provide a solution. I&nbs= p;think Mark summarized the problem  
<= div>statement, although Marcello may want it = ;in more detail. In my  
opinion,&= nbsp;the logical next step for a proposed&nb= sp;solution is discussion  
in mext.

= --Apple-Mail-28--159207612-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 25 08:08:01 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E64FD3A67A5 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:08:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.859 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.859 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.364, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 Ifq-T5uyVbNU for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:08:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3E3B28C139 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:08:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmUiO-0007Zj-LH for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:08:24 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.70] (helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmUiJ-0007Yt-EY for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:08:21 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,419,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="161404533" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Mar 2009 15:08:18 +0000 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2PF8IcN025286; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:08:18 -0700 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2PF8IoQ003387; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:08:18 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.40]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:08:14 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:08:12 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: AcmtBfqf5JxLC1A1QnCT0k0AiYYUEAASsCSw References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <215BF73C-7C0D-4DAF-B399-7E812A8FB4A2@cisco.com> <2F30B075-D410-4EDD-A52F-AA9693D30DCA@cisco.com> From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" To: "Antonio Querubin" Cc: "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" , "IPv6 Operations" , "Fred Baker (fred)" , "james woodyatt" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Mar 2009 15:08:14.0899 (UTC) FILETIME=[856E3030:01C9AD5B] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1191; t=1237993698; x=1238857698; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20comm ents |Sender:=20; bh=tSRIbPxkBReiWdq88/GQeGA/cks7M4TUGYG2S0smqBk=; b=oGIS128iHP9K0dgE+es+T/7qz7lf1b4yZv3LCsZo1fjXvcWYuY3NqS415e Kv5+oA3d5eUo958Rj4zgjMuScDHnmTCotg8i2sQ5oe0Sn6Yw5/V0OpfFko1l ZUKA36WXIf; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=shemant@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: >It's hard to figure out where in the draft the deployment type is actually=20 >specified. Regardless, the above may not be a good assumption. Our DSL=20 >deployment here for example currently uses SLAAC and RAs. PD is currently=20 >done manually. Eventually we want to use DHCPv6 for PD to the CPE router.=20 >We don't use PPP at all for either IPv4 or IPv6 on DSL. The intent of our document is not to specify deployment type - we define a set of Conceptual Configuration Variables that a vendor may use to implement the CPE Router. For old networks that have not moved to DHCPv6 PD, I am not surprised manual configuration has been used. Even with DHCPv6 PD, we will have to work out details to see how much automatic configuration is possible. Notice for IPv4 standalone home routers, most routers still need a manual configuration to choose if the home has a DSL or cable broadband access. Also, in your DSL deployment, do you have an embedded router in a DSL modem or is the router a standalone router? An embedded router has lot more automatic configuration because the L2 of the device can communicate internally to the embedded CPE Router. Hemant From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 25 08:13:45 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EB033A6802 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:13:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.263 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.263 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.676, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 wCgYPw+U6b2V for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:13:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 496AA3A67A5 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:13:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmUna-0008Lp-AQ for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:13:46 +0000 Received: from [217.169.121.21] (helo=GRFEDG702RM001.telecomitalia.it) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmUnR-0008KD-M0 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:13:41 +0000 Received: from grfhub702rm001.griffon.local (10.19.3.9) by GRFEDG702RM001.telecomitalia.it (10.173.88.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.340.0; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:11:53 +0100 Received: from GRFMBX702RM001.griffon.local ([10.19.3.19]) by grfhub702rm001.griffon.local ([10.19.9.235]) with mapi; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:13:29 +0100 From: Maglione Roberta To: Maglione Roberta , "'Hemant Singh (shemant)'" , "'Ralph Droms (rdroms)'" , 'IPv6 Operations' CC: "'Fred Baker (fred)'" , 'james woodyatt' , 'Wojciech Dec' Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:13:29 +0100 Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: AcmskUazPTjo4qwyT8iIXv/BJpPq5AAVYhAwABxLSKAAAOxvsA== Message-ID: References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <215BF73C-7C0D-4DAF-B399-7E812A8FB4A2@cisco.com> <2F30B075-D410-4EDD-A52F-AA9693D30DCA@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: 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 Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: >In case of IP Sessions if SLAAC is used to number the WAN link you will se= e RA > with M and O bits set I missed a NOT; I meant if SLAAC is NOT used, sorry. Roberta -----Original Message----- From: Maglione Roberta Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 3:50 PM To: 'Hemant Singh (shemant)'; Ralph Droms (rdroms); IPv6 Operations Cc: Fred Baker (fred); james woodyatt; Wojciech Dec Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Hello Hemant, > For a standalone CPE Rtr, if one reads the draft, one will see that if > the CPE Rtr WAN interface sees an RA with M and O bits set when no PPP > link has been established prior to seeing this RA, it's a cable > deployment. If an RA is seen after PPP negotiation, it's a DSL > deployment. I'm not sure the criteria you mentioned is enough to identify a DSL CPE: in= DSL environment you can have either PPP or IP Sessions. In case of IP Sess= ions if SLAAC is used to number the WAN link you will see RA with M and O b= its set. Best Regards, Roberta -----Original Message----- From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Hemant Singh (shemant) Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 2:34 AM To: Ralph Droms (rdroms); IPv6 Operations Cc: Fred Baker (fred); james woodyatt Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Ralph, Note the our draft covers both an embedded CPE Rtr and a standalone CPE Rtr. If the CPE Rtr is embedded in a cable or DSL modem, or 3GPP legacy data device, then the L2 of the modem or 3GPP device can easily signal the upper layers of the Rtr to be configured for cable, DSL, or 3GPP WAN interface setup. For a standalone CPE Rtr, if one reads the draft, one will see that if the CPE Rtr WAN interface sees an RA with M and O bits set when no PPP link has been established prior to seeing this RA, it's a cable deployment. If an RA is seen after PPP negotiation, it's a DSL deployment. These are some ideas we have in mind thus far. We can certainly look into a flow chart for such provisioning in the standalone rtr case. Alternatively, for the standalone case, we may leave it to the vendors to differentiate between their products as to how automatic is their standalone CPE Rtr provisioning. Hemant -----Original Message----- From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ralph Droms (rdroms) Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 10:57 AM To: IPv6 Operations Cc: Fred Baker (fred); james woodyatt Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments And there needs to be a way in which the CPE router can determine what mode it is supposed to operate in ... no matter whether it is connected directly to a WAN link (cable or DSL or IPoSN) or to a link inside the subscriber network. - Ralph Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle per= sone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dall= a conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abb= iate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di dar= ne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione= , Grazie. This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged = information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, pri= nting or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended r= ecipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sen= der by return e-mail, Thanks. From talkity@linea.com Wed Mar 25 08:16:32 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95ACF3A67A5; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:16:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.687 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.687 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, HELO_EQ_DYNAMIC=1.144, HELO_EQ_IT=0.635, HOST_EQ_IT=1.245, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA_OBFU=1.812, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 zh+IGt9zvz2X; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:16:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from host45-179-dynamic.53-82-r.retail.telecomitalia.it (host45-179-dynamic.53-82-r.retail.telecomitalia.it [82.53.179.45]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2AF8F28C1AE; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:16:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: X-Originating-IP: 26.4.224.122 by 250.99.131.60; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:11:16 +0400 To: "Concepcion Powell" From: "John Chappell" Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:17:16 -0500 Subject: Spring quality watches offer Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit The new Porsche Design watches originated from the novel Titanium Chronograph from the 1970's, an absolutely unique creation due to the perfection of its workmanship. Based on its design, the Porsche Design Company developed an appealing, stylish, sporty and highly accurate watch. Unfortunately, these timepieces come with a high price tag. http://famelace.com That's why a clever group of European manufacturers decided to offer the same exact functionality and style at greatly reduced prices: the Porsche Design replica watches. These replicas are so similar to the brand name pieces that it is practically impossible to tell them apart, other than by their price. They look the same, they function the same and they definitely don't have the same prices :) How would you like to browse through an amazing collection of these watches and marvel yourself with their low prices? Visit Exquisite Replicas and see for yourself why sometimes replicas are so much better than the originals! http://famelace.com From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 25 08:17:33 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57B923A6811 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:17:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.841 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.841 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.346, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 M4JXmX1ai9zS for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:17:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F6153A67A5 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:17:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmUrH-0008ts-7K for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:17:35 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.117] (helo=sj-iport-6.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmUqy-0008ph-Qx for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:17:28 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,419,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="273884416" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Mar 2009 15:17:16 +0000 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2PFHGrJ016293; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:17:16 -0700 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2PFHCk3015841; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:17:16 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.40]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:17:03 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:17:02 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: AcmskUazPTjo4qwyT8iIXv/BJpPq5AAVYhAwABxLSKAAAOjOoA== References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <215BF73C-7C0D-4DAF-B399-7E812A8FB4A2@cisco.com> <2F30B075-D410-4EDD-A52F-AA9693D30DCA@cisco.com> From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" To: "Maglione Roberta" , "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" , "IPv6 Operations" Cc: "Fred Baker (fred)" , "james woodyatt" , "Wojciech Dec (wdec)" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Mar 2009 15:17:03.0614 (UTC) FILETIME=[C091B1E0:01C9AD5C] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=981; t=1237994236; x=1238858236; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20comm ents |Sender:=20; bh=2W/WOwfWnqsOUuF4sHDz4+uK24aL3oeBFmFXhcqwAZs=; b=gwvYleQq7V7vedvgVyRb5LLhTKs1vwSpPCS9mDRujegmgH5RShC0dMknhg HV5VY6HtlAdFDJEYQgUlmE0BjhoILqJevRQP2lJ4tAe63uKDLfgDKg7HzM2q Ix3cl4XCQG; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=shemant@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: >I'm not sure the criteria you mentioned is enough to identify a DSL CPE: in DSL environment you can have either PPP or IP Sessions. In case of IP Sessions if SLAAC is used to number the WAN link you >will see RA with M and O bits set. I was referring specifically to a DSL deployment if the network uses PPP. Of course, for other flavors of deployment, one has to work out details to see how much automation is possible with the CPE Router configuration. Also, note, if a DSL deployment uses embedded router (DSL modem combined with a CPE Router), then the device vendor has complete flexibility for lot of automatic configuration because the L2 of the DSL modem can communicate with the embedded CPE Router; likewise for an embedded router in a cable modem. See my earlier email where I said we are focused more on Conceptual Configuration variables that may be left to a vendor to use to automate whatever they would like to for configuration.=20 Hemant From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 25 09:09:05 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2B1E3A6D44 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:09:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.704 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.704 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.809, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 WHLzVLBuy56v for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:09:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 541573A6D59 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:08:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmVbq-000GIt-OU for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:05:42 +0000 Received: from [17.254.13.23] (helo=mail-out4.apple.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmVbm-000GIE-HX for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:05:40 +0000 Received: from relay14.apple.com (relay14.apple.com [17.128.113.52]) by mail-out4.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52CEB5B73439; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:05:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay14.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay14.apple.com (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with ESMTP id 3CC2728084; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:05:37 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 11807134-a4052bb000000ff0-78-49ca565185f0 Received: from [17.151.121.35] (unknown [17.151.121.35]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay14.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id 0F02128086; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:05:37 -0700 (PDT) From: james woodyatt To: IETF V6OPS , 74attendees@ietf.org In-Reply-To: <49CA47DF.9080307@free.fr> Subject: Re: [74attendees] The great emphasis on IPv6 - a positive look References: <1237854355.16613.46.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <49C834AD.8050305@isoc.org> <1237859324.16613.63.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <6B2B4523-5EE6-4ECC-9AAC-A08AD0070787@icann.org> <1237862367.16613.86.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <49C91B22.1010901@isi.edu> <60E7F803-A547-4819-8482-70937CC96F1C@icann.org> <49C9217A.2030407@isi.edu> <49C9BAF0.6090309@free.fr> <2241F597-F9CA-4841-B06C-E9B0AE98D44C@muada.com> <49CA47DF.9080307@free.fr> Message-Id: <8337B887-0196-4433-A11D-73DB09434476@apple.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Reply-To: IPv6 Operations Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:05:36 -0700 Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9mi_Despr=E9s?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: [moving discussion into V6OPS from 74attendees] On Mar 25, 2009, at 08:03, R=E9mi Despr=E9s wrote: > > RFC 3068 (An Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers) does more harm =20 > than good. IMHO, it should be deprecated. I would support that, providing first that 6RD is A) adopted as a =20 proposed standard, and B) comes to see more widespread deployment than =20= 6to4. I also believe the latter is very likely to happen contingent =20 on the former, so I would vigorously support taking up 6RD as a =20 working group activity. -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, communications engineering From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 25 09:19:38 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A676728C122 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:19:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.11 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.215, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 EljFSq0pQ1ok for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:19:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE3CD28C203 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:19:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmVp3-000IE0-J5 for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:19:21 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.117] (helo=sj-iport-6.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmVoy-000IDT-8j for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:19:18 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,419,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="273932837" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Mar 2009 16:19:08 +0000 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2PGJ8aJ000492; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:19:08 -0700 Received: from dhcp-56c8.meeting.ietf.org ([10.21.72.80]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2PGJ55k015471; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:19:08 GMT Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9mi_Despr=E9s?= Message-Id: From: Fred Baker To: IPv6 Operations In-Reply-To: <8337B887-0196-4433-A11D-73DB09434476@apple.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: [74attendees] The great emphasis on IPv6 - a positive look Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:18:40 -0700 References: <1237854355.16613.46.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <49C834AD.8050305@isoc.org> <1237859324.16613.63.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <6B2B4523-5EE6-4ECC-9AAC-A08AD0070787@icann.org> <1237862367.16613.86.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <49C91B22.1010901@isi.edu> <60E7F803-A547-4819-8482-70937CC96F1C@icann.org> <49C9217A.2030407@isi.edu> <49C9BAF0.6090309@free.fr> <2241F597-F9CA-4841-B06C-E9B0AE98D44C@muada.com> <49CA47DF.9080307@free.fr> <8337B887-0196-4433-A11D-73DB09434476@apple.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1187; t=1237997948; x=1238861948; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[74attendees]=20The=20great=20emphasis= 20on=20IPv6=20-=20a=20positive=20look |Sender:=20; bh=Ez9HYQPWLQnMkelbgaJfaNPoehGMmLxNMiQwCYRmCR4=; b=zFyICwkXPdGW9axQJfBr4U931HVqtBLvcoKGFvtuPur7uCRCEWtCPVCrrd icamZHPMdnYNP6awGReymsNwfGUiepwYouFWA0gzMbCyZuB+0cYOgWI3smPf ZqIZfB3ZJ3; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Mar 25, 2009, at 9:05 AM, james woodyatt wrote: > [moving discussion into V6OPS from 74attendees] > > On Mar 25, 2009, at 08:03, R=E9mi Despr=E9s wrote: >> >> RFC 3068 (An Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers) does more harm =20= >> than good. IMHO, it should be deprecated. > > I would support that, providing first that 6RD is A) adopted as a =20 > proposed standard, and B) comes to see more widespread deployment =20 > than 6to4. I also believe the latter is very likely to happen =20 > contingent on the former, so I would vigorously support taking up =20 > 6RD as a working group activity. 6rd is a transition behavior. Please refer to = http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/v6ops-charter.html=20 , and its two statements regarding working group effort on transition =20= behaviors. IPv6 Operations, in this context, can generate requirements. Our ADs =20 have told us to ask other working groups to build solutions when =20 solutions are needed. This has not stopped folks from asking for slots =20= to discuss transition behaviors, and I have been lenient in allowing =20 that. That doesn't allow us to take it up as a working group focus.= From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 25 09:19:52 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8761528C214 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:19:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.504 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.504 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.302, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 Ouq7nYeTkDP3 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:19:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A830A28C20B for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:19:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmVq2-000IMM-Gz for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:20:22 +0000 Received: from [80.12.242.26] (helo=smtp20.orange.fr) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmVpw-000ILh-Ob for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:20:18 +0000 Received: from dhcp-17b6.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-17b6.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.23.182]) by mwinf2029.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id BBF391C00042 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:20:12 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20090325162015769.BBF391C00042@mwinf2029.orange.fr Message-ID: <49CA5940.40700@free.fr> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:18:08 -0700 From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?R=E9mi_Despr=E9s?= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: [74attendees] The great emphasis on IPv6 - a positive look References: <1237854355.16613.46.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <49C834AD.8050305@isoc.org> <1237859324.16613.63.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <6B2B4523-5EE6-4ECC-9AAC-A08AD0070787@icann.org> <1237862367.16613.86.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <49C91B22.1010901@isi.edu> <60E7F803-A547-4819-8482-70937CC96F1C@icann.org> <49C9217A.2030407@isi.edu> <49C9BAF0.6090309@free.fr> <2241F597-F9CA-4841-B06C-E9B0AE98D44C@muada.com> <49CA47DF.9080307@free.fr> <8337B887-0196-4433-A11D-73DB09434476@apple.com> In-Reply-To: <8337B887-0196-4433-A11D-73DB09434476@apple.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: james woodyatt - le (m/j/a) 3/25/09 9:05 AM: > [moving discussion into V6OPS from 74attendees] > > On Mar 25, 2009, at 08:03, Rémi Després wrote: >> >> RFC 3068 (An Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers) does more harm >> than good. IMHO, it should be deprecated. > > I would support that, providing first that 6RD is A) adopted as a > proposed standard, and B) comes to see more widespread deployment than > 6to4. I also believe the latter is very likely to happen contingent > on the former, so I would vigorously support taking up 6RD as a > working group activity. Excellent. At 4:00 PM today at IETF registration, I will meet Benoit Lourdelet and Richard Johnson to propose a 6rd DHCP option. (You are obviously welcome if you would like to join.) RD From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 25 09:47:17 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3F5D3A693C for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:47:17 -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=[AWL=-1.307, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 eVRQxyV2+7jc for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:47:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED87F3A67D1 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:47:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmWFV-000MPZ-7m for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:46:41 +0000 Received: from [74.125.92.26] (helo=qw-out-2122.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmWFP-000MP1-1f for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:46:38 +0000 Received: by qw-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 8so99873qwh.65 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:46:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=B+oyCZ/IH94A+vZojQcJXPlPrKWzO9ItI9RUR+EdUhk=; b=HzRce6wpWRT/DWW/GAIy0h2QcCvYc43mQDgT1Bo/gAqMbbrSVKRDIPEpLkHC+bE5/N Llgg0/r2HmBZvbBRCu7f83bJzZOZ9iNgFtmaFxXseuEdhpxsL5wOKa7JRVSjtrnKdSIb UrkofjtiuAn6eaYR+NQPFKoJ/sxaylojBTE7w= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=bUQK7XdOb8UwKJ14AVSfWKfn31rQw09G1i86gUmq1s8WFjKaGBgH3PCfk2Iz2H7+r/ XS/tqYb0eQWvvCOCHTPzqjm1SS/7+A4z4ZQCnKI2KwXdTcpyOHxH0BOZoNq6EpqJYghc zAcVF/m3B92axwEG5os7I+3QQSQa8BztRh+ao= Received: by 10.142.169.4 with SMTP id r4mr3998415wfe.262.1237999593194; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:46:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?130.129.18.229? (dhcp-12e5.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.18.229]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 30sm16299196wfg.14.2009.03.25.09.46.24 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:46:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49CA5FDB.7000001@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 05:46:19 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: [74attendees] The great emphasis on IPv6 - a positive look References: <1237854355.16613.46.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <49C834AD.8050305@isoc.org> <1237859324.16613.63.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <6B2B4523-5EE6-4ECC-9AAC-A08AD0070787@icann.org> <1237862367.16613.86.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <49C91B22.1010901@isi.edu> <60E7F803-A547-4819-8482-70937CC96F1C@icann.org> <49C9217A.2030407@isi.edu> <49C9BAF0.6090309@free.fr> <2241F597-F9CA-4841-B06C-E9B0AE98D44C@muada.com> <49CA47DF.9080307@free.fr> <8337B887-0196-4433-A11D-73DB09434476@apple.com> In-Reply-To: <8337B887-0196-4433-A11D-73DB09434476@apple.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On 2009-03-26 05:05, james woodyatt wrote: > [moving discussion into V6OPS from 74attendees] [and dropping 74attendees] >=20 > On Mar 25, 2009, at 08:03, R=C3=A9mi Despr=C3=A9s wrote: >> >> RFC 3068 (An Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers) does more harm >> than good. IMHO, it should be deprecated. >=20 > I would support that, providing first that 6RD is A) adopted as a > proposed standard, and B) comes to see more widespread deployment than > 6to4. I also believe the latter is very likely to happen contingent on= > the former, so I would vigorously support taking up 6RD as a working > group activity. Firstly, I think 6RD is worthy of consideration, although I'm not sure it should be here rather than 6MAN or even individual submission to an AD. Secondly, I think it's quite premature to deprecate the 6to4 anycast method. Of course, I would have preferred to see 6to4 deployed as described in RFC3056 (i.e. relay addresses would be specific unicast addresses) but we can't put the toothpaste back in the tube at this point. In a few years 6to4 should fade away spontaneously. Meanwhile we need to live with it, e.g. draft-nward-6to4-qualification. Brian From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 25 09:56:23 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 393033A6B45 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:56:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.991 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.991 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.496, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 GHykTPALWYCq for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:56:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B3743A67FD for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:56:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmWOc-000NUz-Bn for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:56:06 +0000 Received: from [17.254.13.22] (helo=mail-out3.apple.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmWOW-000NUR-T9 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:56:03 +0000 Received: from relay11.apple.com (relay11.apple.com [17.128.113.48]) by mail-out3.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6119D58C2B0C; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:56:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay11.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay11.apple.com (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with ESMTP id 2260D2807F; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:56:00 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 11807130-a9092bb000000fcd-08-49ca621f7742 Received: from [17.151.121.35] (unknown [17.151.121.35]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay11.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id EE5A128080; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:55:59 -0700 (PDT) Cc: IPv6 Operations Message-Id: <15FD7268-3439-41F5-AAC3-D6D7C2EACBB6@apple.com> From: james woodyatt To: ietf softwire In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: [74attendees] The great emphasis on IPv6 - a positive look Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:55:59 -0700 References: <1237854355.16613.46.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <49C834AD.8050305@isoc.org> <1237859324.16613.63.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <6B2B4523-5EE6-4ECC-9AAC-A08AD0070787@icann.org> <1237862367.16613.86.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <49C91B22.1010901@isi.edu> <60E7F803-A547-4819-8482-70937CC96F1C@icann.org> <49C9217A.2030407@isi.edu> <49C9BAF0.6090309@free.fr> <2241F597-F9CA-4841-B06C-E9B0AE98D44C@muada.com> <49CA47DF.9080307@free.fr> <8337B887-0196-4433-A11D-73DB09434476@apple.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Mar 25, 2009, at 09:18, Fred Baker wrote: > On Mar 25, 2009, at 9:05 AM, james woodyatt wrote: >> On Mar 25, 2009, at 08:03, R=E9mi Despr=E9s wrote: >>> >>> RFC 3068 (An Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers) does more harm =20= >>> than good. IMHO, it should be deprecated. >> >> I would support that, providing first that 6RD is A) adopted as a =20 >> proposed standard, and B) comes to see more widespread deployment =20 >> than 6to4. I also believe the latter is very likely to happen =20 >> contingent on the former, so I would vigorously support taking up =20 >> 6RD as a working group activity. > > 6rd is a transition behavior. Please refer to = http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/v6ops-charter.html=20 > , and its two statements regarding working group effort on =20 > transition behaviors. > > IPv6 Operations, in this context, can generate requirements. Our ADs =20= > have told us to ask other working groups to build solutions when =20 > solutions are needed. This has not stopped folks from asking for =20 > slots to discuss transition behaviors, and I have been lenient in =20 > allowing that. That doesn't allow us to take it up as a working =20 > group focus. Ooops! My mistake. Since 6RD is a tunneling mechanism and not a =20 translating mechanism, I would expect this request should be directed =20= to SOFTWIRE. So, here I am in SOFTWIRE now. -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, communications engineering From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 25 10:11:43 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADE1F28C147 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:11:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.08 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.08 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.186, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 QWLKg1ywphxx for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:11:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEB8D3A6D5E for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:11:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmWbj-000Oey-7k for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:09:39 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.72] (helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmWba-000Odl-I9 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:09:35 +0000 X-Files: None : None X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,420,1233532800"; d="doc'32?scan'32,208,217,32";a="146644814" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Mar 2009 17:09:29 +0000 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2PH9TnH012454 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:09:29 -0700 Received: from dhcp-56c8.meeting.ietf.org ([10.21.72.161]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2PH9TLE021402 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:09:29 GMT Message-Id: <73C4B529-78A8-49AC-93C7-0CACF40C41FB@cisco.com> From: Fred Baker To: IPv6 Operations Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-14--151752537 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Fwd: Liaison from the Broadband Forum Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:09:28 -0700 References: <208D3722DBD8FD4C9E9D7075AA826421017BBDCC@GBCWSWIEM004.ad.plc.cwintra.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=99638; t=1238000969; x=1238864969; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20 |Subject:=20Fwd=3A=20Liaison=20from=20the=20Broadband=20For um |Sender:=20; bh=pXoqL7QMHu4Q91uERdDSfnRrM6CAzW/TPmLTEeNjR8E=; b=a3bQB99alYfn/E2j+jSJS8iUVn8jUucbFMgnpZNxD7SJt1rE80gz4pjWqs ES+NKCNACvnVFt8HpTZPsEPM8OpIuhYmZWV38Z0sSFFKt4U7zCKYY3UuctAp 5Cuk5JJOlfUsz/MovmF7b3EdiwfbC0EatHJmhU9M4E/P3XXQ+4pRA=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: --Apple-Mail-14--151752537 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit As I mentioned in the meeting Monday, we re in receipt of a liaison (a letter) from the Broadband Forum. This relates to the work of several working groups, and in ours is primarily related to the CPE draft. The authors of that draft are in direct communication with the Forum and are addressing the issues raised. That said, any opinions on the questions would be good. Begin forwarded message: > From: "Young, Gavin" > Date: March 22, 2009 1:49:09 PM PDT > To: , , >, , , > , , , > > Cc: "David Allan" , > Subject: Liaison from the Broadband Forum > > Dear all, > > Please find attached a liaison from the Broadband Forum. > > Regards, > > Gavin Young > Technical Committee Chair > > > > Gavin Young > Chief Architect C&W Access > Cable&Wireless > Europe, Asia & US > Direct Dial: +44 (0) 207 528 3597 > Mobile: +44 (0) 7748 937 007 > Email: gavin.young@cw.com > www.cw.com > > > This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the Cable & Wireless e- > mail security system - powered by MessageLabs. For more information > on a proactive managed e-mail security service, visit http://www.cw.com/uk/emailprotection/ > > The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may > also be subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the > recipient(s) named above. If you are not named above as a recipient, > you must not read, copy, disclose, forward or otherwise use the > information contained in this email. If you have received this e- > mail in error, please notify the sender (whose contact details are > above) immediately by reply e-mail and delete the message and any > attachments without retaining any copies. > > Cable and Wireless plc > Registered in England and Wales.Company Number 238525 > Registered office: 3rd Floor, 26 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4HQ --Apple-Mail-14--151752537 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=Apple-Mail-15--151752537 --Apple-Mail-15--151752537 Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable As I mentioned in the meeting = Monday, we re in receipt of a liaison (a letter) from the Broadband = Forum. This relates to the work of several working groups, and in ours = is primarily related to the CPE draft. The authors of that draft are in = direct communication with the Forum and are addressing the issues = raised. That said, any opinions on the questions would be = good.

Begin forwarded message:

From: = "Young, Gavin" <Gavin.Young@cw.com>
=
Date: = March 22, 2009 1:49:09 PM PDT
=
Cc: "David = Allan" <dallan@nortel.com>,= <david.j.thorne@bt.com>=
Subject: Liaison from the Broadband = Forum

=

Dear all,

 

Please find attached a = liaison from the Broadband Forum.

 

Regards,

 

Gavin = Young

=

Technical Committee = Chair

 

 

 

Gavin = Young

Chief Architect C&W = Access

Cable&Wireless =

Europe, Asia & = US

Direct Dial: +44 (0) 207 528 = 3597

Mobile: +44 (0) 7748 937 = 007
Email: gavin.young@cw.com

www.cw.com =

 


This e-mail has = been scanned for viruses by the Cable & Wireless e-mail security = system - powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive = managed e-mail security service, visit http://www.cw.com/uk/emailp= rotection/

The information contained in this e-mail is = confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. It is intended = only for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not named above as a = recipient, you must not read, copy, disclose, forward or otherwise use = the information contained in this email. If you have received this = e-mail in error, please notify the sender (whose contact details are = above) immediately by reply e-mail and delete the message and any = attachments without retaining any copies.

Cable and Wireless = plc
Registered in England and Wales.Company Number 238525
= Registered office: 3rd Floor, 26 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4HQ
=
=
= --Apple-Mail-15--151752537 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="IETF bbf2009 266 001DA.doc" Content-Type: application/msword; x-unix-mode=0666; name="IETF bbf2009 266 001DA.doc" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 0M8R4KGxGuEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPgADAP7/CQAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAbgAAAAAAAAAA EAAAbAAAAAEAAAD+////AAAAAG8AAAD///////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////s pcEAJWAJBAAA+BK/AAAAAAAAMAAAAAAABgAA9hEAAA4AYmpiak7gTuAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAJBBYAOyIAACyKAQAsigEAbQkAAAAAAACIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD//w8AAAAA AAAAAAD//w8AAAAAAAAAAAD//w8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKQAAAAAAPwKAAAAAAAA/AoAAPwK AAAAAAAA/AoAAAAAAAD8CgAAAAAAAPwKAAAAAAAA/AoAABQAAAAAAAAAAAAAABALAAAAAAAAGBUA AAAAAAAYFQAAAAAAABgVAAA4AAAAUBUAACwAAAB8FQAAFAAAABALAAAAAAAArk8AANgBAACcFQAA uAAAAFQWAABMAAAAoBYAAAAAAACgFgAAAAAAAKAWAAAAAAAAfxcAAAAAAAB/FwAAAAAAAH8XAAAA AAAALU8AAAIAAAAvTwAAAAAAAC9PAAAAAAAAL08AAAAAAAAvTwAAAAAAAC9PAAAAAAAAL08AACQA AACGUQAAaAIAAO5TAABGAAAAU08AABUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/AoAAAAAAACSGAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAB7FwAABAAAAH8XAAAAAAAAkhgAAAAAAACSGAAAAAAAAFNPAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAD8CgAAAAAAAPwKAAAAAAAAoBYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKAWAADbAAAAaE8AABYAAAAq GwAAAAAAACobAAAAAAAAKhsAAAAAAACSGAAA9AAAAPwKAAAAAAAAoBYAAAAAAAD8CgAAAAAAAKAW AAAAAAAALU8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACobAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAkhgAAAAAAAAtTwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKhsAAAAAAAAqGwAA TgIAANVGAACoAQAA/AoAAAAAAAD8CgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA0UsAAAAAAACgFgAAAAAAAJAVAAAMAAAAQFaNDfOm yQEAAAAAAAAAABgVAAAAAAAAhhkAALgAAAB9SAAAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALU8AAAAAAAB+TwAAMAAA AK5PAAAAAAAArUgAACQDAAA0VAAAAAAAAD4aAACIAAAANFQAAGAAAADRSwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADR SwAAMAAAADRUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD8CgAAAAAAAAFMAAAsAwAAfxcAADAAAACvFwAAIgAAACob AAAAAAAA0RcAABwAAADtFwAApQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAfxcA AAAAAAB/FwAAAAAAAH8XAAAAAAAAU08AAAAAAABTTwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAxhoAAGQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH8XAAAA AAAAfxcAAAAAAAB/FwAAAAAAAK5PAAAAAAAAkhgAAAAAAACSGAAAAAAAAJIYAAAAAAAAkhgAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAABALAAAAAAAAEAsAAAAAAAAQCwAARAYAAFQRAADEAwAAEAsAAAAAAAAQCwAAAAAA ABALAAAAAAAAVBEAAAAAAAAQCwAAAAAAABALAAAAAAAAEAsAAAAAAAD8CgAAAAAAAPwKAAAAAAAA /AoAAAAAAAD8CgAAAAAAAPwKAAAAAAAA/AoAAAAAAAD/////AAAAAAIADAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAELDQ1C cm9hZGJhbmQgRm9ydW0gTGlhaXNvbiBUbzoNDUJpbGwgRmVubmVyLCATIEhZUEVSTElOSyAibWFp bHRvOmZlbm5lckBmZW5yb24uY29tIiABFGZlbm5lckBmZW5yb24uY29tFSAgU0FWSSBXRw1DaHJp c3RpYW4gVm9ndCATIEhZUEVSTElOSyAibWFpbHRvOmNocmlzdGlhbi52b2d0QGVyaWNzc29uLmNv bSIgARRjaHJpc3RpYW4udm9ndEBlcmljc3Nvbi5jb20VIFNBVkkgV0cNRnJlZCBCYWtlciwgEyBI WVBFUkxJTksgIm1haWx0bzpmcmVkLmJha2VyQGNpc2NvLmNvbSIgARRmcmVkLmJha2VyQGNpc2Nv LmNvbRUgVjZPUFMgV0cNS3VydCBMaW5kcXZpc3QsIBMgSFlQRVJMSU5LICJtYWlsdG86a3VydGlz QGt1cnRpcy5wcC5zZSIgARRrdXJ0aXNAa3VydGlzLnBwLnNlFSBWNk9QUyBXRw0NRGFuIFJvbWFz Y2FudSwgEyBIWVBFUkxJTksgIm1haWx0bzpkcm9tYXNjYUBhdmF5YS5jb20iIAEUZHJvbWFzY2FA YXZheWEuY29tFSwgT1BTIEFSRUENUm9uIEJvbmljYSwgEyBIWVBFUkxJTksgIm1haWx0bzpyYm9u aWNhQGp1bmlwZXIubmV0IiABFHJib25pY2FAanVuaXBlci5uZXQVIE9QUyBBUkVBDRMgSFlQRVJM SU5LICJtYWlsdG86cmRyb21zQGNpc2NvLmNvbSIgFFJhbHBoIERyb21zIDxyZHJvbXNAY2lzY28u Y29tPhUgIElOVCBBUkVBDRMgSFlQRVJMSU5LICJtYWlsdG86amFyaS5hcmtrb0BwaXVoYS5uZXQi IBRKYXJpIEFya2tvIDxqYXJpLmFya2tvQHBpdWhhLm5ldD4VICBJTlQgQVJFQQ0TIEhZUEVSTElO SyAibWFpbHRvOnRvd25zbGV5QGNpc2NvLmNvbSIgFE1hcmsgVG93bnNsZXkgPHRvd25zbGV5QGNp c2NvLmNvbT4VIElOVCBBUkVBDQ1Gcm9tOg1HYXZpbiBZb3VuZw1Ccm9hZGJhbmQgRm9ydW0gVGVj aG5pY2FsIENvbW1pdHRlZSBDaGFpcgsoE0hZUEVSTElOSyAibWFpbHRvOmdhdmluLnlvdW5nQGNv bm5lY3RmcmVlLmNvLnVrIgEUZ2F2aW4ueW91bmdAY29ubmVjdGZyZWUuY28udWsVKQ0NRGF0ZTog TWFyY2ggNSwgMjAwOQ1TdWJqZWN0OiBJUHY2IHNlY3VyaXR5IGluIGJyb2FkYmFuZCBuZXR3b3Jr cw0NRHVyaW5nIG91ciBsYXN0IG1lZXRpbmcgd2UgaGF2ZSBiZWVuIGRpc2N1c3NpbmcgdGhlIHNw ZWNpZmljIHVzZSBvZiBJUHY2IGluIGEgcmVzaWRlbnRpYWwgYnJvYWRiYW5kIGVudmlyb25tZW50 LiAgV2UgYmVsaWV2ZSB0aGUgcHJlc2VuY2Ugb2YgZHVwbGljYXRlIGxpbmstbG9jYWwgYWRkcmVz c2VzIG1heSByZXN1bHQgaW4gc2VjdXJpdHkgaXNzdWVzLiBXZSBjYW4gZW52aXNpb24gYSBudW1i ZXIgb2Ygc2NlbmFyaW9zLCBib3RoIG1hbGljZSBvciB2ZW5kb3IgaW5jb21wZXRlbmNlIGJ5IHdo aWNoIHRoaXMgY2FuIGhhcHBlbi4NDUFuIGFkZGl0aW9uYWwgcG90ZW50aWFsIGNvbXBsaWNhdGlv biBpcyB0aGF0IGNvbnRyYXJ5IHRvIHRoZSBhc3N1bXB0aW9ucyB0YWtlbiBpbiB0aGUgSVB2NiBw cm90b2NvbCBzdWl0ZSCWIGluIHBhcnRpY3VsYXIgUkZDIDQ4NjEgYW5kIFJGQyA0ODYyIJYgYSBz cGxpdC1ob3Jpem9uIG1vZGVsIGlzIGVtcGxveWVkIGluIHN1Y2ggZW52aXJvbm1lbnQuIFRoaXMg aW1wbGllcyB0aGF0IGRpZmZlcmVudCBJUHY2IGhvc3RzIHdpbGwgbm90IGJlIGFibGUgdG8gY29t bXVuaWNhdGUgZGlyZWN0bHkgYXQgdGhlIEV0aGVybmV0IGxpbmstbGF5ZXIuIEluc3RlYWQsIGhv c3QtaG9zdCBjb21tdW5pY2F0aW9uIG5lZWRzIHRvIGNyb3NzIGFuIElQIEVkZ2UgUm91dGVyLiAN DVdlIGFsc28gYmVsaWV2ZSB0aGF0IGluIHRoZSBjYXNlIG9mIEV0aGVybmV0IG5ldHdvcmsgcmVj b25maWd1cmF0aW9uIChlLmcuIHJlc3VsdGluZyBpbiBhbm90aGVyIEFjY2VzcyBOb2RlIGJlaW5n IGNvbm5lY3RlZCB0byB0aGUgRWRnZSBSb3V0ZXIpLCB0aGUgTmVpZ2hib3IgQ2FjaGUgb2YgdGhl IEVkZ2UgUm91dGVyIG1heSBiZSBwYXJ0aWFsbHkgb3IgZnVsbHkgb3ZlcndyaXR0ZW4sIHJlc3Vs dGluZyBpbiBzaW1pbGFyIHNlY3VyaXR5IGlzc3Vlcy4NDUdpdmVuIHRoaXMsIHdlIHdvdWxkIGxp a2UgeW91IHRvIHByb3ZpZGUgZmVlZGJhY2sgYXMgdG8gd2hldGhlciBvciBub3QgeW91IGJlbGll dmUgdGhlcmUgaXMgaW5kZWVkIGEgc2VjdXJpdHkgaXNzdWUgdG8gYmUgc29sdmVkIGluIHN1Y2gg YSBkZXBsb3ltZW50IG1vZGVsLiBJZiB0aGVyZSBpcywgd2Ugd291bGQgbGlrZSB0byBhc2sgeW91 IHRvIGNvbnNpZGVyIHRoaXMgYXMgcGFydCBvZiB5b3VyIG9uZ29pbmcgd29yayBwbGFuIGFuZCBw cm92aWRlIGZlZWRiYWNrIG9uIHlvdXIgZmluZGluZ3MuDQ1XZSBsb29rIGZvcndhcmQgdG8gaGVh cmluZyB5b3VyIHJlc3BvbnNlLiBPdXIgbmV4dCBtZWV0aW5nIGlzIGluIFZhbGVuY2lhLCBTcGFp biwgTWF5IDE4LTIyLg0NU2luY2VyZWx5LA0NR2F2aW4gWW91bmcNQnJvYWRiYW5kIEZvcnVtIFRl Y2huaWNhbCBDaGFpcg0DDQ0EDQ0DDQ0EDQ0TIFBBR0UgICBcKiBNRVJHRUZPUk1BVCAUMhUvEyBO VU1QQUdFUyAgIFwqIE1FUkdFRk9STUFUIBQxFQ0NDRMgUEFHRSAgIFwqIE1FUkdFRk9STUFUIBQx FS8TIE5VTVBBR0VTICAgXCogTUVSR0VGT1JNQVQgFDEVDQ0NDQAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAQgAAAII AAAECAAAIAgAACEIAAAuCAAALwgAAFUIAABWCAAAVwgAAGgIAABpCAAAcwgAAIIIAACDCAAAswgA ALQIAAC1CAAA0AgAANEIAADaCAAA5ggAAPLt6dvNwK7Alq6HrsB6rnpirlOuekIAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAgFWjLdUsAFmjLdUsAT0oCAFFKAgBeSgIAbUgUBHNIFAQAHBVoy3VLABZoy3VLADBK IwBPSgIAUUoCAF5KAgAALwIIgQNqGjIAAAYIARVo+23RABZoy3VLAE9KAgBRSgIAVQgBXkoCAG1I FARzSBQEGBVoy3VLABZoy3VLAE9KAgBRSgIAXkoCAAAcFWhfUPgAFmjLdUsAMEojAE9KAgBRSgIA XkoCAAAvAgiBA2pPMQAABggBFWj7bdEAFmjLdUsAT0oCAFFKAgBVCAFeSgIAbUgUBHNIFAQjA2oA AAAAFmjLdUsAT0oCAFFKAgBVCAFeSgIAbUgUBHNIFAQYFWhfUPgAFmjLdUsAT0oCAFFKAgBeSgIA ABoWaMt1SwBPSgIAUUoCAF5KAgBtSBMEc0gTBAAbFWiyJVYAFmhhBwUANQiBT0oCAFFKAgBeSgIA BhZoYQcFAAAJFmhhBwUAeSgDGgNqAAAAABZoYQcFAFUIAW1IAARuSAAEdQgBFgAGAAADCAAABAgA ACAIAAAhCAAAcwgAANoIAAAxCQAAigkAAIsJAADiCQAANwoAAIgKAADgCgAANgsAADcLAAA9CwAA SQsAAMcLAADICwAA3AsAAAkMAAAKDAAAOQ0AADoNAACzDgAA9wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPIAAAAAAAAA AAAAAADyAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA7QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAO0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAADtAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA 7QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAO0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAADtAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA7QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOgAAAAA AAAAAAAAAADtAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA7QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAO0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAADoAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAA6AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADoAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA6AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOgA AAAAAAAAAAAAAADoAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA6AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADeAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAA3gAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAABnZNtxXAAABAAAZ2RfUPgAAAQA AGdkpDFXAAAEAABnZMt1SwAABBgAZ2SkMVcAAAcYAAMkAWEkAWdkpDFXAAAZAAYAAG0RAAD1EQAA /v4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIBAQLmCAAA5wgAABAJAAAR CQAAEgkAACYJAAAnCQAAMAkAADEJAABBCQAAQgkAAGoJAABrCQAAbAkAAH8JAACACQAAmgkAAJsJ AADCCQAAwwkAAMQJAADWCQAA1wkAAO4JAADvCQAAFwoAABgKAAAZCgAALAoAAC0KAAA2CgAANwoA AO3cxO2x7dyj3O3ci+2x7dzt3HPtse3c7dxb7bHt3KMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAC8C CIEDaoY1AAAGCAEVaPtt0QAWaMt1SwBPSgIAUUoCAFUIAV5KAgBtSBMEc0gTBC8CCIEDarc0AAAG CAEVaPtt0QAWaMt1SwBPSgIAUUoCAFUIAV5KAgBtSBMEc0gTBC8CCIEDauQzAAAGCAEVaPtt0QAW aMt1SwBPSgIAUUoCAFUIAV5KAgBtSBMEc0gTBBoWaMt1SwBPSgIAUUoCAF5KAgBtSBQEc0gUBAAk FWjLdUsAFmjLdUsAMEojAE9KAgBRSgIAXkoCAG1IFARzSBQEAC8CCIEDag0zAAAGCAEVaPtt0QAW aMt1SwBPSgIAUUoCAFUIAV5KAgBtSBMEc0gTBCAVaMt1SwAWaMt1SwBPSgIAUUoCAF5KAgBtSBQE c0gUBAAjA2oAAAAAFmjLdUsAT0oCAFFKAgBVCAFeSgIAbUgTBHNIEwQAHzcKAAA4CgAAXQoAAF4K AABpCgAAfAoAAH0KAACICgAAiQoAALIKAACzCgAAvQoAANQKAADVCgAA4AoAAOEKAAAICwAACQsA ABYLAAArCwAALAsAADULAAA2CwAANwsAAD0LAAB0CwAAdQsAAKULAACmCwAApwsAAOrZ6sCt6tnq 2erArerZ6tnqwK3qn5KFd2piXlNiAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAVAgiBA2pZNgAABggBFmjPGGYA VQgBBhZoYQcFAAAPA2oAAAAAFmhhBwUAVQgBGBVosiVWABZoYQcFAE9KAgBRSgIAXkoCAAAbFWiy JVYAFmhhBwUANQiBT0oCAFFKAgBeSgIAGBVoy3VLABZoYQcFAE9KAgBRSgIAXkoCAAAYFWjLdUsA FmjLdUsAT0oCAFFKAgBeSgIAABoWaMt1SwBDShgAT0oCAFFKAgBeSgIAYUoYAAAkFWjLdUsAFmjL dUsAMEojAENKGABPSgIAUUoCAF5KAgBhShgAADAVaMt1SwAWaMt1SwAwSiMAPioAQioAQ0oYAE9K AgBRSgIAXkoCAGFKGABwaAAAAP8AIBVoy3VLABZoy3VLAENKGABPSgIAUUoCAF5KAgBhShgAACkD agAAAAAVaMt1SwAWaMt1SwBDShgAT0oCAFFKAgBVCAFeSgIAYUoYAAAdpwsAAMQLAADFCwAAxgsA AMcLAADICwAAzQsAAM4LAADbCwAA3AsAAOQLAAAIDAAACQwAAAoMAAB7DAAAfAwAAH0MAABoDQAA 5Q0AAO0NAAAqDgAALw4AADMOAAA7DgAASg4AAFMOAABaDgAAYw4AALEOAACyDgAANBEAAGwRAABt EQAAbhEAAHARAABxEQAAcxEAAHQRAAB2EQAAdxEAAHkRAAB6EQAAkREAAJIRAACTEQAAlBEAAPHp 3NLcxNzS3MTSt9zSraOt0q3SmdKZ0q3SmdKZ0tyMhICEgISAhIDpfOlz6QARFmjbcVwAbUgABG5I AAR1CAEGFmhhBwUAAAYWaI9XdQAADwNqAAAAABZoj1d1AFUIARgVaN41yQAWaGEHBQBPSgIAUUoC AF5KAgAAEhZoeloNAE9KAgBRSgIAXkoCAAASFmhfUPgAT0oCAFFKAgBeSgIAABIWaNtxXABPSgIA UUoCAF5KAgAAGBVocELkABZoYQcFAE9KAgBRSgIAXkoCAAAbFWiyJVYAFmhhBwUANQiBT0oCAFFK AgBeSgIAEhZoYQcFAE9KAgBRSgIAXkoCAAAYFWiyJVYAFmhhBwUAT0oCAFFKAgBeSgIAAA8DagAA AAAWaGEHBQBVCAEcFWjOZC8AFmhhBwUAMEojAE9KAgBRSgIAXkoCAC2zDgAAtA4AALgPAAC5DwAA 1hAAANcQAAA0EQAANREAAEARAABBEQAATREAAG0RAABvEQAAcBEAAHIRAABzEQAAdREAAHYRAAB4 EQAAeREAALURAAC2EQAAtxEAAPMRAAD0EQAA9REAAPYRAAD6AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA+gAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAPoAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD6AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA+gAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPoAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD6 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA+gAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPoAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD6AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA9QAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADuAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAO4AAAAAAAAAAAAA AADwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA7gAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADuAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA6QAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAOcAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADuAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA3wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAO4AAAAAAAAA AAAAAADuAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA9QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHGgADJAFhJAFnZJMEzAAAARoAAAQaAAMk AWEkAQABAAAABAAAZ2TKNUEAAAQAAGdkYT2mAAAEAABnZKQxVwAAGpQRAACVEQAAlhEAALERAACy EQAAsxEAALQRAAC2EQAAtxEAALgRAADPEQAA0BEAANERAADSEQAA0xEAANQRAADvEQAA8BEAAPER AADyEQAA8xEAAPQRAAD1EQAA9hEAAPz0/PTr9Pzn9Pz03vT89Pz01fT859HEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGBVo3jXJABZoYQcFAE9KAgBRSgIAXkoC AAAGFmiPV3UAABEWaI9gZABtSAAEbkgABHUIAREWaNtxXABtSAAEbkgABHUIAQYWaM8YZgAAERZo Jk7qAG1IAARuSAAEdQgBDwNqAAAAABZoYQcFAFUIAQYWaGEHBQAXOQAKMAExkGgBHFABADpwkwTM AB+w0C8gsOA9IbCgBSKwoAUjkKAFJJCgBSWwAAAXsMQCGLDEAgyQxAIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABPMQAARABkAAAAAAAAAAoAAAAA AAAAAQAAAAAANxQaBOgD6AMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA8ABPCUAAAA sgQK8AgAAAABBAAAAAoAAGMAC/BiAAAABEEBAAAA/wEAAAgAPwMQABAAgMMUAAAAgcMqAAAAvwMA AAIAUABpAGMAdAB1AHIAZQAgADEAAABCAHIAbwBhAGQAYgBhAG4AZABGAG8AcgB1AG0AXwBzAGkA egBlAGQAAAATACLxBgAAAL8DAIAAgAAAEPAEAAAAAAAAgFIAB/BnMAAABQWXaDk/i702k0saXOmu U+u8/wBDMAAAAQAAAEQAAAAAAHoQoEYd8DswAACXaDk/i702k0saXOmuU+u8///Y/+AAEEpGSUYA AQEBAGAAYAAA/9sAQwACAQECAQECAgICAgICAgMFAwMDAwMGBAQDBQcGBwcHBgcHCAkLCQgICggH BwoNCgoLDAwMDAcJDg8NDA4LDAwM/9sAQwECAgIDAwMGAwMGDAgHCAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwM DAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwMDAwM/8AAEQgARgFZAwEiAAIRAQMRAf/EAB8A AAEFAQEBAQEBAAAAAAAAAAABAgMEBQYHCAkKC//EALUQAAIBAwMCBAMFBQQEAAABfQECAwAEEQUS ITFBBhNRYQcicRQygZGhCCNCscEVUtHwJDNicoIJChYXGBkaJSYnKCkqNDU2Nzg5OkNERUZHSElK U1RVVldYWVpjZGVmZ2hpanN0dXZ3eHl6g4SFhoeIiYqSk5SVlpeYmZqio6Slpqeoqaqys7S1tre4 ubrCw8TFxsfIycrS09TV1tfY2drh4uPk5ebn6Onq8fLz9PX29/j5+v/EAB8BAAMBAQEBAQEBAQEA AAAAAAABAgMEBQYHCAkKC//EALURAAIBAgQEAwQHBQQEAAECdwABAgMRBAUhMQYSQVEHYXETIjKB CBRCkaGxwQkjM1LwFWJy0QoWJDThJfEXGBkaJicoKSo1Njc4OTpDREVGR0hJSlNUVVZXWFlaY2Rl ZmdoaWpzdHV2d3h5eoKDhIWGh4iJipKTlJWWl5iZmqKjpKWmp6ipqrKztLW2t7i5usLDxMXGx8jJ ytLT1NXW19jZ2uLj5OXm5+jp6vLz9PX29/j5+v/aAAwDAQACEQMRAD8A/T79tz9t3VPDXii78G+D br7DLYny9S1KMAyrJjJhiJ+7tz8zdc8DGCa+QtX1q98QX8l3f3d1fXUpy81xK0sjn3ZiSal8TXV7 feJdRn1IudRmupXut/3vNLkvn33ZqjX8oZ/n2KzTFSrV5PlvpHpFdFbv3fU/Kcwx9XFVXOb06LsF FFFeEcIVgfEz4maR8JPCNxrWtXAgtYOEQcyXD9o0Hdj+nU8UnxN+JukfCPwjca1rVwIbWH5UReZL h+0aDux/TqeK+Avjt8dtX+PHi5tQ1FjBZwEpZWSNmO1T+rHu3f6YFfW8LcLVc1q88/dpR3ffyXn3 fT7keJnOcwwUOWOs3sv1f9amt8aP2rvFnxh1K4Vr+50rRmYiLTrWUpGF7eYRgu3qTx6AV5kTk0UV +84PBUMLTVHDwUYrov61fmz80r4irWm6lWV2fZn/AAQI/wCUnXg3/sHap/6RS1/QZX8+/wDwQDt3 n/4Kb+EmVSVh0zVHc/3R9kkXP5kfnX9BFe3g37j9T+gPCv8A5E8v+vkvyifl1+1H/wAnKeNf+wzN /wChV+neh/8AIFs/+uCf+givzD/akO39pLxsfTWJz/49W/8AET9rr4i/GXWfsunX+q6bZKoSDTdH 3hggGAXZBvc+pPHoBX4bw/xRh8mxmOlWi5SnO0UutpTvr815+R25fmdPB1q7mm23ol6s/Seivy80 D9oH4lfCXW0KeIfEllcId5ttSaSRJB/tRzZyK+3f2RP2tLT9o/QZrW8hi0/xNpiBrq2Q/u50PAmj zztzwQeVJHXIr9F4e48wWaV/qri6dTon18k+/k0vI+iy/PaGKn7KzjLs+p7NRXwL+0h+1b8QfA/7 QfibTdN8T31tpmn6hshtVSLaqAKduShODz+dRfBr9obx38cf2qPDd1fanqz6e2poZLGzaRbK1i5w rKvBGMZL9a5ZeI2C+t/UoUpufPydLb2bvd6L0uZPiKh7X2Ki+bmt072uff8ARXyT+1l/wUFufC2v 3fhnwK1ubmzYw3mrOolWOQcMkKnglTwWORngDjNfNNx8YviR4vkk1D/hI/Gd6Izl5re4n8uP/v3h RU5v4kZfhK7w1CDqyju1a3nr1t5K3mLF8R0KNR04Jya3tsfqZRX54/BD/goB40+Guqwx65eTeKdF LBZorog3US9zHL1JHo2QfbrX3p4N+IOkePPBNp4i028im0m8g+0JOx2hFH3t2fulcEEHoQa93h3i zA5xCX1duMo7xe6Xfs15/fY7svzWhjE/Z6Nbpm1RXwv+0v8A8FDdc8Ua5c6V4Gum0fRLdjH/AGii j7Te46spP+rT0wNx65HSvG9N+LPxKVv7WtfEHjaRVO43S3FxJF+J5XFfOY/xOy+jXdHD05VUt2rW +Xf10XyPOxHE2HhU5KcXK3VfofqZRX576h/wUJ8a6z8KE0ttQez8R2t3G8eq2sSA3VvtYMkikFQ2 dpyoGcdj1+gf+Cenxd8RfFbwH4jvPE2rzapNZX6xxSzKi+UnlBiPlAGM88162U8dZfmOMhg8MpXk r3aSSsm2nre+np5nXhM8w+IrKjTTu1f/AIB9D0V8T/tP/wDBRHVdR1y70TwDOlhptsxik1bYHmui OCYs8Ino2CT1GK8KtPi98SZ3bV4PEfjWUKdzXSXNw8QPufuV5eZeJmX4eu6GHhKrbdqyXy7+ui7M 5cTxLh6dRwpxcrdVt8j6n/4Kpf8AJM/C3/YVf/0S1cH+xz/yaP8AGL/r2k/9JWryb4qftSeIfjd8 NdL0LxGYb650m8+0w6gqhJJUMZQo6jgnkHcMd8jvXrP7HP8AyaP8Yv8Ar2k/9JWr4yGbUMz4jljM PfllSlvo1ak00ePHF08TmTrU9nF/+ks4X/gnz/ydX4e/64Xf/pO9fo5X5T/BH4s3PwQ+INv4ksrW K7vLO3njgjlJEYeSNkDNjkgZzgdcVr678ffid8Ub6a8fxB4puwGLMmnGWKCH2CxAACp4P40w2UZa 8NKEp1JTbsu1orV/J7JiyjOaWEw3s3Fyk23p6I/UGivzc+Ef7cPj/wCFOsR/adVuvEOmowWex1Nz I2O4WQ/OjfiR6ivv34RfFfSfjT4BsvEOjylrS7Uh0fiS3kH3o3HZlP8AQ9CK/UuHOMMFnF4UbxqL Vxe9u6tuvx8j6fLc3o4y8YaSXRnTUV8YftWf8FB9SPiC78P+ArlLS0tHMNxq4UPJO44YQ5yFUHjf gk9sDk+A2XxZ+JOrXDala+IfG900Z3NcQ3NzIin6j5a8PM/EvAYbEPD0ISq23atbzt3/AC7M4cTx JQp1HTpxcrdVt/wT9TaK/PjTf+Cg3jU/CjUtDvL+X+3FaJtP1iKNBMoWQeZHKpG05XOGxnsfWvUP 2L/j34x+I3gf4kXOua9dajcaNpomsnkSMG3fy5juG1R3VeuelduA8QcuxmJp4ahGTc03stLJtp67 2XS61Wpvh8/w9apGlBO7V/S19Hr5H1vRX5ueDv28PiV4b1T7Xda/LrKiCREt7uOMRB2UhXO1QTtJ 3YyMkc1zXiD46/EnxWza1d+JPFjQ7s/aIZZYbaM56DZhAPavIqeKuX8ilSozb7aKy73u/wCtzjlx Th+W8INv5H6kUV8L/sp/t8a/oHiyx0LxpfPrGjX8qwJfT4+02LMcKzN/GmSM55HXPGK+yviZ8SNK +Evgi/8AEGsz+RYWCbmxy8jHhUUd2YkAD3r6/JOKMDmeEli6T5VD4lLRx669LW6nr4LM6GJpOrB2 S3v0N6ivzn+M/wC3p46+KGqSrpuoT+F9ILEQ2ti+2Zl7b5R8xY+i4HtXK6F8evid8NLuHUI/EHiq 1V2DL9vaWW3m9isoKsDXyVfxTy+NZxpUpygt5aL5pP8AWx5U+KMOp2jFtd/6/wCAdn/wUa/5Ogv/ APrwtf8A0A14VXY/HP4x3fx38cr4gv7WG0vZLOG3nWEkxu8YILqDyAeuOcetcdX4xn2Lp4rMa+Jo u8ZybXo2fGY6rGriJ1IbNtn1F+3T+x5q+jeNNQ8Z+GrGbUdJ1Vzc39vboXlspj99wo5aNj82R90k 54xXy28qxOVZgjA4Ibgg/Sv2GrJvvAWhapctNc6LpNxM33nls43Y/UkZr9iz3wxo4vEyxOEq+z5n dpq6u97aq3pr5aaH2GO4ZhWqurSly33Vr/cfkd9oj/56J/30K5/4nfFbRPhF4Rn1nWbtIraL5Y41 IMtzJjiNB3Y/kByeK/WT4u3/AIA+Cfgq51zXNH0KG2hG2ONbCIy3Mh6RouOWP6dTgCvzh+Pvj2H9 oLxm2p6loeiW9nBlLGxSyiMdnGT0+7y543N39gAK/Pc/4Xw2S1IRxNf2knq4RVnbu227X6aM+Yzf KvqcOWNVOb2VtvN6/wDDn5efHT486t8ePFzajqMghtIcpZWSPmO0T0Hqx7t3+mBXFBwx4IP41+n/ APwgGgf9ALRP/ACL/wCJrxD9v3wrpejfAyCaz0zTrOY6rAvmQWqRtjZJxlQDivr8j44w1SrSy/D4 fki2or3tF+B+XZjw7VjCeKq1eZrV6b/ifGFLHG00iois7uQqqoyWJ6AD1pYomnlVEVndyFVVGSxP QAdzX2V+yF+yCvgCO38T+KLdX11wHs7NxldOB6O3rL/6D9en2Ge57h8rw/tq2rfwx6t/5d309bI8 HLctq4yr7Ont1fY9+/4IO/s2XPwj/aO0zXtbi8rXdYsLmNLc/esoPJZtrf7bHBI7YA65r9jq/Oj/ AIJ58/tU6J/163f/AKJav0XqPD/Mq2PwNXFV370qj9EuWNkvJH9JcF4Snhsu9jS2Un+SPy8/aet3 u/2mfGcMeDJNrUyLnpkvgV+hnwF+BWi/AbwJaaVplrCLrylN7ebR515LgbmZuuM9B0AxX59ftH6V fat+0145Fhb3FxNb6tPMxiQt5Khs72PRVHqcCvt39l79sbwZ+0V4bit7LxFoT+KdPhVdV0uO/ikn t5B8pcKrHKE9GHHODzXy/AMMOs2xk6sff5nytr+9LmSe19vO3zMcinRjjKqqWUm3y39Xe34HWfHX 4J6P8dfAN7o+p20TzNExs7naPNtJsfK6t1HOMjoRkGvz1/ZY8W3Xw0/aS8MzK5RjqK6dcqDw6St5 Tj6ZIP1UV96/tDftKeH/AIE+Cby6ub+1m1d4mWxsI5A008pHy5UchQeSx4AHrxXwj+yN4Iuvid+0 n4ciCmRba8GqXbgcKkR8wk+mW2j6sKOO5UJ51go4O3t+ZXtv8UeW/wCPy8rF564PG0VR+O+tvVWv +JX/AGwTt/aY8bH01Bv/AEBa+0fEcNn+zV+xReT6BBFZz2uixlZUUB5LiZVXzWPUtufdk+mK+Lv2 wv8Ak5fxt/2EG/8AQFr7v+L3gGf4nfsoX+i2i77u70SJrde7yIiSKv4lQPxrl4Voyli82nRX7xKa i+t257erSM8qg3WxcoL3tbfez4c/Y9+Clr8d/jZaaVqRd9Ks4Xv71QxDTIhACZ6/MzKCeuM1+k+h 6FZeGtKhsdOtLexs7dQkUMEYjjjA7ADivzW/ZD+NUHwE+NlnqupLImmXMb2F/hSWhRyDvx1+V1Uk dcZ71+k2g+JdP8U6PFqGm31rfWM670nglDxsOucjivY8LHg/qNRQt7bmfN3tpb5frc6+FnR9hLl+ O+ve3T5Hyb/wUl/Z60jSfD1t450i0hsbs3S2upJCoRLgODslIHG8MME9wwz0rxz4Y/G3UPDP7J/j 7wzFPIqXV1aLAQf9Uk5YTqPQMsY/76PrXsH/AAUg/aM0fXvD9t4H0W8g1C4F0t1qUsDh47cIDsi3 DgsWOSO20Z5NeS/C34Gah4n/AGSvH/iZIJGENzavagLzKluzNOw9QBJ/46fSvleIeV8QV/7J/wCf c+fl2vyS5tvl/wBveZ5eYWeYT+qfyu9vR3/T5+Zf/YD+A+m/Gf4qXVzrUCXek+HYFuGtnGUuJWYi NWHdRtZiO+ADxmv0KtrSKztUghijihjXasaKFVR6ADgCvzy/YK+P+nfBD4oXcGtzC20fxDClvJct 922lViY3b/ZO5gT2yD0Br9CbPVrXUNPW7t7m3ntXXes0cgaNl9Qw4xX2vhi8H/ZVqVvaXfP33087 Wtbpe/W57XDLo/Vfc+K7v38vlY+LP+Ck/wABNJ8E3uleLtHtYrEavO1pfwwqEjeXaXSUAcAkBg2O uAeua5b4JeOrjwF+xD8SZ7SRornUNTg09HU4KiVFVyP+Abq6H/go9+0LpPxE1LS/Cmh3cOoQaNM1 1e3MLB4jMVKLGrDg7QWJI4ywHUGsH4GeAbj4hfsSfEm2tI2lurDUoNQjRRkv5UaswHvs3V8VmDov iLE/2Zb+HU+Hbm9m72t5/jc8XEcjzGr9W/llt35dbf1uY/7CXwF0/wCOHxbl/tiIT6PoNuLue3P3 bly22NG/2c5JHfbjvX6J2en2+nWUdtbwQwW0S7EijQKiL6BRwB7V+c/7Dnx7sfgV8XHl1eTydF1y 3Fncz4yLZtwaOQ4/hByD6Bie1fopp+uWWraWl7a3dtc2ci71nilV42X1DA4xX2Phe8H/AGY1St7W 75+/l52tt0vc9jhh0fqz5fivr38vkfGX/BSH9nnSfBX9neMdEtIbAalcm01CCFQkbyFSyShRwCdr BsdeD1zVT9jn/k0f4xf9e0n/AKStUn/BRr9o7SfiDLp/hDQbuLUINLuDdX9zCwaIyhSqRqw4baGY kjjJA7Go/wBjn/k0f4xf9e0n/pK1fL1Xg3xVWeCty8k7225vZu9vnv53PMk6P9qz9htyy22vyu/9 dzyH9lP4P2/xx+Nuk6Fesy6cQ91eBThnijGSgPbccLnsCa/TLw54Z07who0GnaVZW2n2NsoSKC3j EaIB7D+dfmN+zF8X4/gb8Z9H8QXCPJYxFre8VBlvJkXaxA7leGx321+mnhPxlpXjvRIdS0bULTUr G4UMk1vIHUg+vofY8ivb8KZYP6pVUbe25te/LZWt5Xv89+h28Kuj7KSXx31726fI+c/+CjnwC0nV fhtL42srSG11nSJYxdyxKF+2QOwT58dWVmUg9cZHpj5+/Zx+NeofDn4QfE/TLad4xeaUk9tg/wCp maVLdmX0JSUf98Cve/8Agot+0To9p8O5fBOm3sF9q2qSxm9WFw4s4UYPhyOAzMqgL1xk+mfCv2aP gff/ABJ+D3xP1O3gd/s+lJbWvH+umWRbhlX1O2ID/gYrw+JXF8SP+yfj9nLm5f5uSd9utrfPzOHM rPMn9U+Lld7d7P8AS3zM79iv4I2Xxy+Nlvp+pp5ukaZbtf3cOceeqlVWM+xZhn2BHev0j0vSrXRN PitLK3gtLWBQkcMKBEjA7ADgCvzb/Yx+OVn8CPjPBqOplk0jUrdrG8kVSTArFWWTA5IVlGfYmv0g 0TxDYeJNKivtPvbW9spl3pPBKJI2HqCOK+l8LHg/7Pmqdva8z5u9unnb8L3PS4XdH6u+X4769/L5 Hyh/wUq+Aek2Hhi18caZaQ2V+t0lpqAiQIt0rg7ZCBxvDADPUhuegrlP+CfX/JOfi3/2CF/9FXFd H/wUj/aI0fXfD9r4I0e8g1C5W6W71KSFw8duEB2RbhwWJOSO20Z61zn/AAT6/wCSc/Fv/sEL/wCi rivCxTwj4w/2S1uWXNbbm9nK/wCl/O/U4arpPOP3PZ3t35Xf+u54p+zh4FtfiV8b/CuiXyeZY316 guEzjzI1Bdl/EKR+NfqPHoVlDo405bO1XTxH5IthEvkhMY27MYxjtivzW/Yl/wCTofBn/XzJ/wCi JK/TOvY8J6FP+z61W2rna/kop2/FnXwpCP1ecra3t+CPyz/ac8C2nw0+O/inRdPQQ2VndlreNekS OqyKo9huwPpXtP8AwUF+JN5q3gP4a6K0r+Xd6THq90M/62Ro1RCfp+8/OvNf26v+TpfF3/XSH/0n jr0b9vDwHcN8Kvhd4njRntk0WDTbhgOI2MSSR5+vzj8K+GlTnSpZtRwytFSWi/lVR/gl+B4jjKMc XCnsmvu5js/+Cb/7O+kT+Dm8dapaw32o3NxJDpwmQOtokZ2s4B43lgwz2CjHU19Ua94fsfFGkz2G pWltfWVypSWCeMSI4PYg8V8of8E4/wBo/SNN8KyeBdZvILC8huHn02SZwkdyjnc0YY8Bw2SB3Dcd K+q/EnivTPB2jTajqt/aafYwKXeeeUIgAGep6/Sv1vgmWA/sSn7C1re/t8X2ub/g9LdD6zJXQ+pR 9na1tfXrf+tj82f2u/gvbfAn423+j6fuGl3MaXtkrHJijfPyZ77WVgPbFeY16T+1l8aYPjx8atQ1 qyV10yFEs7HeMM8SZ+cjtuYs2OwIrzav57zt4Z5hWeD/AIfM+W21r9PLt5H59jfZfWJ+x+G7sfsJ XMfF34u6J8E/BVzrmuXIhtoRtjjXmW5k7Rovdj+nU4AqT4sfFPSfg14FvfEGtTGKzs1GFUZknc8L Gg7sx/x6A1+bH7QHx/1r9obxs+q6o5htISUsbFGzFZx+g9XP8Td/oAK/oPjDi+lk9H2dP3q0louy /mfl2XX7z9AzjN4YOHLHWb2X6v8ArUP2gP2gNa/aG8bPquqMYLSHKWNijZis489B6ueNzd/oAK4W iiv5wxWKq4mtKvXk5Sk7ts/OatWdSbqVHdsK8L/4KExPcfAq1jjRpJJNYt1VVGWYlJAAB3Ne7Qwv cTJHGjySSMEREUszsTgAAdST2r2P4ufsVr8Lv2bLDxZ4rt0k8STavbNaWbjK6WpSX5m9Zj/47065 r1+HqVeOI+v0oc0aHvy6Ky6X7vp/wGY18uq4zDVIQ2tq+x8Kfsifsgp8PYrfxN4nt1k15wHtLRxl dOB6M3rL/wCg/Xp9DdaKK4c1zXEZhiHicS7t/cl2Xl/T1ObBYKlhaSpUlp+fmz23/gnn/wAnU6J/ 163f/olq/Revzo/4J5/8nU6J/wBet3/6Javs/wDbDvNd0/8AZR+JE/hh9Tj8Rw+G799MbTgxvFuR buYzEE+bzN2NuOc4r9x8LXbJ5v8A6eS/9Jifo3DtX2eXzqWvZt/ckfjR/wAF0v2vbvxF+0z4m+FX hWZ9H8IaBdiXXEtnKNr+pyKJJHuGHLpFuEaIflUqxxkjE3/BPL/gmr8bfC9nceNrvwBqFtoev6TE +nv9ogFzMrusit5IfzFBXkZAPI4r4b+JmoeI9W8f6xc+MX1eXxTPdO+qtqwcXrXBPzmYP82/PXdz X6nf8Env2vfiP+zZ8M/i744/aC1L4lDwj4Z0bTTosPiKO5VbiVnmRYLNZgFZ3/drhegwTgDNfSY7 LKGOw08HUvGMv5bK2t+1j8bybFUM0zyeIx7kldtNWtBJN+9dOySVtOp3/hH9if4neMtUWIeF7zTg 5w9zqTrAiD1OSWP4A19q/sp/svaV+zh4fuEW6i1PxDfhft94BjAHSJB1VAfXknk9gPwt/a//AOCt Hxr/AG3PGs1nba1rHhnw5eTeTp/hnw9NJHvUnCrI8eJLiQ98/LnooFeZ+Jf2fPj18BdHi8Xap4T+ KvhKyTEq6vLa3tqsXcM0owU+rEV4uQ8I5dlVb6xSUqk1tKVtPRJWXq9T6HD8aYHC1pVMFhp1Yx+2 3a3mkou3z19D9hf2lf2QPiN47+OnirV9J8OSXen6heNLbzC6hUSLtUZwXBHI7ivuTwlZS6b4V0y3 mXZNBaRRyLnO1ggBH51+On/BKr/gup4n8NePtJ8AfGrWH8QeG9XlSzsfEl2R9s0qVjhBcP8A8tYS SAXb50zkllBx6X/wce/Hrxx8GPEXwmXwd4x8TeFk1G21NrkaTqUtoLkq1ttL+Ww3Y3NjPTJ9a9fJ siwmW1a+MoSk3Vd5J201b0sl38z6fA8T5bSy6tnOG5pWa5ouyabdvu10et/W59R/taf8E/ZPHGu3 fibwS1rb392xlvdNmcRRTueTJG54Rj1IPBPORXzPP+zb8TtDne0Xwf4sQMcMLaCR4pP+BISpHvmv zg1b9p34+fti+G/D3w3h1zx541TSklaDTbGS5u7q/d5WdpbgqS8pXcEUv8qKoAxyT7Z/wUs/aB+L X7PfxT8AeFNM8bePPBw0z4b+HY7vSrXVri0W2uRabZQ8asAJNykN3yK+czfgPLcbWliqblSb35bW be+jWnydvI+WxXFWAxEJ42FCcYrlV01q5bra2lu+vZH3x8Dv+Cdfi/x3qcM/iaBvC2iqwaRZGVry Yd1RBnYT6t09DX3V4V8D6V4L8H2ugadZQwaTZwfZo7fG5SmOQc9c5OSepJz1rxn/AIJdeLNV8df8 E+/hVq+t6lfavq1/oiS3V5eTtPPcPvf5ndiSx9ya8W/4OBvil4m+EX7EOl6p4U8Q614a1N/Fdnbt d6XeSWszRtBckoXQg7SVUkdOBX0mQcMYDJqLeGTcpLWT1b8uyXkvnc/RKNTC5blTzKEG/cUn3s0n bt1E/aP/AOCdWueHdbudT8C241fR52Mn9nCQLc2WeqpuIEienO4dMHrXkGnfs2fE+5l+wQeD/F0S OcGNoJIYfxJITH1NY/8Awb9fH3x18X/DfxxfxZ4z8UeJX0vTbJ7JtU1Oa6NozJd7jGXY7Sdq5x/d HpX56/DT/gpZ8dfhj4nh1m1+KHjPULm3gmiii1TVp722RpImj8wxSMUZk3bl3AgMqnBxXyuYeHWW Vq3t6UpU1K94q1vldaemqPgswz7LIUMPjnTnGNbm0TWnK7P/AIY/WvVf+Cc/i/Q/hdFfCKG+8UXV 2iLplvcxqlrBtYszOxAd87RheBnv297/AOCfvwY8SfBzwN4hs/E+lnTZ76/WWJGlSTzEEQUn5SR1 45r8D/GHwk/aD+J/hib4l67oHxZ13SblTdv4hu7e9niZDz5okPRO+4fKB7V61+x7/wAFsPjD+yb4 E1zw82ot42067sWi0Ya5cPcPodycbZUc5Z4gM5hY7c7cFeQfUynhLLcvxkMZQ5k4q1m007qzb0vd 36O3lYnLeNMvw2LjUxFCdKNtG3e+m7XKnr5Nr5H6iftR/wDBPHUbXXbrXfAccFzYXbmWXSXlWJ7Z jyfJLEKyE9FJBHQZrwy1/Zu+Jvm/YYvB/i2NZDgxi3kSFvqchMe+cV+bkq/tDft+eItS1+KD4m/E 26t3Jup7SK5ure0PXYqp+6jAHRFAwO1aX7Mf7fnxn/YH+KCf2drfiCGHTbkR6p4W1uSZrS4APzRS QScxPjOHUKw46jg+VmPh9lmJxDr0nKkpbpWt52TWnpdrsjhrcW4CpXVWeHnTpSfxJr8Fb8FJn6r3 P/BOjxrp3wq/tI2qXXiSe6iSLSreeMC2gwxd5HYhS2QoCqeMnk9vU/2Z/wBnfxl4D/Zy+Jeh6toz 2mqa7A6WMBnjYzkwMg5DED5iByRXun7NPx90X9qP4EeF/H/h/eul+J7FbuOKQgyWz8rJC2ONyOrI fdTXc17WA4AyzCVo4jDykmouO6s+ZNNvTfX020sfrGDyXBrlxFCTacdNdGmt9uzPz6+F3/BPTxt4 o1W+tfEOnSeH4fsLvaXbTxSxi5DLsV1RiSpG4HHTr7Vxfif9lP4n/DvUprVvDOuyKWwZtM3TwTe+ Yz3/ANoA+1fpzRXm1fC3LHSjCnOcZK/vXTb8mrJadLWfe5jPhfDOKUZNNddP8j84vhP+wd8QfiTq sS3ulS+GdNZgZrvURscDvtizvZvrgepr73+Efwo0n4LeAbLw9o8RW0tFJZ35kuJDy0jnuzH+g6Cu mor6Dhzg/A5PedC8pvRylvbsraJf1c9DLsooYO7hrJ9WfGX7U/8AwTz1OXxHd6/4ChhurW8dpp9J LiOSBzyxhJwpUnnaSCO2RwPBLT9nX4mQXRsYPCPi2FnOGjS3kjjb6nIXHuTX6kUV4mZ+GmW4rEOv SnKnfdRtb5XWn5eRxYnhrDVajqQbjfotj4Esf+CcnjC2+FWoard26v4iYxLYaPbzplQXXe8rkhch M4UH8e1elfsb/s6+M/hh4K+I1pruivY3Gt6aILJDPE/nv5cwx8rHHLL1x1r6xoruwHAGW4PEU8TQ ck4JrdWd0029N7PpZaLQ3oZBhqNSNWm3dK3re+r08z4T/ZY/ZG+Inw9+PnhjWNY8OyWem2E7vPMb qF/LBidQcKxJ5I6CvuyiivZ4d4dw+TUJYfDSk1J83vWveyXRLsdmX5dTwdN06bbTd9T4Y/az/ZL+ IXxH+P8A4k1nRfDsl7pt88RgmF1CgkxCinhmBHII5FfWMPwpsvG/wG07wn4ks98Mmk29rdRbhuhk SJRlWHRlYZBHcV21FY5dwrg8HiMRiIty9vfmUrNattpKy0163Iw+V0aNSpUV3z7p2t+R+dvxn/YA 8c/DfVpjpFhL4q0csTDPZgG4Vewkiznd7rkfTpXLeGv2Vvif4/v4rNPDGvogIAk1LdBBD75kPGPY E+1fp3RXy9fwsy2dZzp1Jxi/spr7k2r/AH3PLnwvhnPmjJpdj8/Pid/wTx8beFrvTLbQbBvEO6yW S/uo544oluC7ZRFdg20Lt5PXk8dBzP8Awwt8Vf8AoVJf/Ay3/wDi6/SmitK/hblM5uUZziuyasvv i397KnwvhJSunJfNf5Hx3/wVX8RXKy+DtIDMtm4uLx1B4eRdiKT9Azf99V8f1+hv7e/7Pd78bfhn bXujQm41zw7I88MC/euomAEka+rfKrAd9uO9fnnJG0EzxyI8ckbFXRwVZCOoIPIPtX5z4j4OvSzm daqvdmk4vpZJJr5NbfPqfO8R0akcZKctpWt91hKdDC9zMkcSPLLIwRERSzOxOAAByST2pbe3ku7m OGGOSaaZgkccalnkY9AAOST6Cvuj9ij9idPhlFbeLPFlukniORd9nZuAy6WCPvN2MxH/AHz0HOSP C4d4dxOcYn2FBWivil0iv8+y6+l2cOXZdVxdTkht1fb+uwfsU/sTJ8M4rbxZ4st0l8RyLvs7NwGX SwR95vWYj/vnoOeRpf8ABTb/AJNyt/8AsNW//oEtfQ9eJ/8ABQPwRdeNv2atTNnG0suj3EWpMijJ ZIyQ/wCSszf8Br94zPIqGA4er4LBR+w/Vu2rfd/8MtD7vE4GFDL6lGiuj9WfnPRQDkUV/M5+aHtv /BPP/k6nRP8Ar1u//RLV+i9fAX/BNPwRda98fZNZRGFloNjKZZMfLvlGxEz6kbz/AMBr79r+hvC+ lKOTOUlpKcmvNWivzTP0LhiLWDbfWT/Q/ma/4KfHP/BQn4z/APY133/ow19u/wDBxj8W9QT4efA3 wNFLImmz6W+u3SBjtnlWOKGIn12hpv8AvuviL/gp9/ykJ+M//Y133/ow1+hH/Bwn+zdqHi79mL4T /E7TbeS4g8IWiaXqxRcmCC5jiMUp9FEqbCfWVa+yinyzt/Wp+LYeFaeEzdUd+aLfopyb/DfyOg/4 Nwv2QPDenfBHUvjFqNhbX/inWNRn0vTJ5kDnTLWHar+Xn7rySFtzDnaqjOCc/pxe2UOpWctvcRRT 286GOWKRQ6SKRgqwPBBBwQa/Gj/ggx/wVC8Jfs8eHtR+EvxG1ODQNIv9QbUtD1i5bbawSyKqy28z 9IwxUMrn5clwSMjP6l/En9tj4R/CPwVN4h174jeDrTSoo/MEiarDO847CNI2Z5CewQEmuzDyj7NW P1LgjH5cslpKlOMeVe/dpWl1b9e/Y/Cf/gtD+yfoX7I/7cOr6P4Yto7Hw34jsYdesrKPhLHzmdJI UHZBJG5UdlYDtXY/8FQvixf/ABu/Yi/ZH8RapK9xqNx4c1O0uJnOWme2mt7Yux7lvK3E+pryL/go 3+1vcf8ABQX9sjVPFWkaderp9yYNF8PWJTNzJboxWIFRn95JI7NtGcGQLzivoD/gs18Bbj9mL9mP 9ljwLebf7Q8P+HtRjvQpyouXe2lmAPcCWRwPpXE7Pncdv+CfkWI5Kkc0rYJfuPdtba7qxtb5c1vI +uf+Daf4a6PpH7H3ifxXFZwjXda8Sz2NzdlB5pgghgMcQbqFDSO2PVjXxV/wcQ/8pHr3/sXNO/lJ X3p/wbd/8o+dQ/7HC/8A/RFrXxF/wcfeD7vQv2+bDVJYnW013wvaPbyY+VzFLNG4B9Rhc/7wraa/ cI+sz+ilwXhuRaJwb+d9fvZ+p/8AwSQ/5RtfB7/sAJ/6G9eD/wDByUf+MBNIHr4wsv8A0nuqT/gh p+3z4A8WfsbeHPh9rHibR9C8X+B0lspLLUbtLZry3813imiLkBxtcKQMlShyMEE+C/8ABxX+3H4M +KXhXwp8LPCGvad4ivNP1M6zrU+nzrcW9mUieOGEyKSpkPmuxAOVCrn71aznH2PyPoc1zbCPhK8a id6cYpXV+ayVrd11Kf8Awba/8it+0B/2C7H/ANAvK+Bv2Efhvp/xf/bJ+FnhnVoUuNK1nxLY295C wys0PmqXQ+zKCD9a++f+DbX/AJFb9oD/ALBdj/6BeV8T/wDBLr/lIZ8GP+xps/8A0KuV7Q/rqfnF aEZ4DKISV05TX/lRH9L0VrFDbLAkcaQouxYwoChcYwB0xjtX80X/AAU++GulfB79vz4raBodrFY6 VZ6081tbRLtjtxNGk5RQOigyEAdgAK/phr+b3/gsj/ykv+L3/YTh/wDSOCujG/Cj7zxYpxeXUZW1 U7ffF/5I/eL9gL4UaR8F/wBjD4aaFotpDaWyeHrK6m8tQDPcTQpLNK3qzO7Ek+tflr/wc0/D3TNA /aV+H/iG0toYNQ8Q6DNDfSIoU3Bt5gI3b1YLLtyeyqOwr9cf2X/+Tafh3/2LOm/+ksVflV/wdB/8 lZ+Ef/YI1D/0dDVYhfufuO/jmjCPDDilpFU7eWqX5H1V/wAG8mqTah/wTe0uKVyyWWvalBECfuqZ A+P++nb86+5K+E/+Ddb/AJRzW3/Yyaj/ADjr7srWh/DXofS8JtvJsNf+SP5BRRRWp9AFFFFABRRR QAUUUUAFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFFFFABXBfEf8AZg8BfFjUGvNd8NWF1et965QNDM/+8yEFvxzRRXPi cJQxEPZ4iCnHs0mvuZnVpQqLlqJNeeo/4b/sz+BfhJei60Hw3p9neAYFywM0y/R3JI/DFd1RRRhs LQw8PZ4eChHskkvuQU6UKceWmkl5aBTZYkuImjkVXRwVZWGQwPUEUUV0Gh8jfH7/AIJqw3+p3ese C9TtNLglJlk029VvJiJ6+W6gkD/ZIOOx7V598Nv+CcniXxnqe2/17Q7CyiYea9v5txLjvtVkQZ+p oor8gzfhfK1nMKSpJRlq0m0tfR6fKx8ji8rwv1xRUNH6/wCZ9n/Bf4LaH8CPBcWiaFAyQhvMnnkO 6a6kPV3Pc8dOgHArraKK/WcPh6VCnGjRioxirJLZI+rp04wioQVkj8M/27f+CUvxH+Lf7YvxO8Ta bq/giHT9d8QXd5bpc3t0kyI7kgOFtmAPrhiPev2kj+HemeMvg3D4W8RWFnq+lX+kpp9/aTJ5kFzG YgjqQeoPPofpRRWWHS5pHwHCGCoU8ZjOWPxPXrfWXf1Pxf8A+CmH/BDKf9lyC/8AGfgTxNYXXgiW UldL1ZpVvtPzk+WkioyzIOxba2Ou48n4Q+Gvwov/AIn+N7fQtMewhvbiURK9wzJECTjkqrHH4UUV yV4KM7I/KuMcrwuEzd0MNDli2tFfr8z9rv8Aglt/wQ+0P9k/XdN+Inj3U7Hxh44hRZ9Lgto2Gm6K zLkSpvAaWYA8OyqF7LnDVi/8F8f2N/FP7VviD4ZSeHL3w/ZrolvqCz/2lcTRFjI1uV2+XE+fuHOc dutFFdlSEY0bI/VcyyjB0OGnh6NNKMlFvfV80dW9/wAT2D/giF+z1rn7M37G974c8QXOlXV9J4lu 7wPp8skkWx4rdQMuiHdlD2x05rvP+Cjn/BOzwx/wUO+D8Wi6pOdG8SaMz3Gha1HH5j2MrABkdcjf C+FDLkH5VIIIoorSlFOkkz3cqwGHr5JTwtWN4OFrP+r/AD3P5+f2qv2Ute/ZK+KV94T8R3mjajeW Mxi87T5JHifHf94ikfTFe9/AL/gjz4n+NP7I+tfEuPxF4ftZmuILTRbBpJlRmMqedJcOIjtxGSFV A2WOSQBglFebGK5n8z8GynLMNVzCtQqRvGMZtK70aTt1PuP/AIIgfsX+K/2Y9A+McPiC+8PXbeId PtIrU6fcTSBCi3QO/fEmB846Z718t/sEf8EvPiF8KP2zPhh4k1HVvBk1jouv2t3OlteXLTMitkhQ 1uoJ+pH1oorZpcsP66n2rwFD6rly5fhlK2r099eZ+6dfiL/wUy/4Jm+P/jX+3P8AEjxTpOq+D4NP 1i/jlgju7y5SZQLaFPmCwMoOVPRjRRW+M+BH1viBhqdfA041Vdc/6M/Y74CaDN4V+BngvS7lonuN N0KxtZWiJKM6W6KSpIBIyDjIH0r8+v8AgvZ+xb4r/aq+I3w5u/Dl94es4tH029hnGpXE0TMXliI2 +XE+RhTnOKKKuuv3X3HZxVQhVyOVOaurQ/NHvn/BFj4Ba1+zb+xRD4a1640u6v01y9uS9hLJJDtc pgZdEOeOePxr61oorSj8C9D2OHqcYZbQhHZRQUUUVoewFFFFABRRRQAUUUUAFFFFABRRRQAUUUUA FFFFAH//2csAAABEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANDJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAAFwAAABIAAABmAGUAbgBuAGUA cgBAAGYAZQBuAHIAbwBuAC4AYwBvAG0AAADgyep5+brOEYyCAKoAS6kLMgAAAG0AYQBpAGwAdABv ADoAZgBlAG4AbgBlAHIAQABmAGUAbgByAG8AbgAuAGMAbwBtAAAA8wAAAEQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA0Mnqefm6 zhGMggCqAEupCwIAAAAXAAAAHAAAAGMAaAByAGkAcwB0AGkAYQBuAC4AdgBvAGcAdABAAGUAcgBp AGMAcwBzAG8AbgAuAGMAbwBtAAAA4Mnqefm6zhGMggCqAEupC0YAAABtAGEAaQBsAHQAbwA6AGMA aAByAGkAcwB0AGkAYQBuAC4AdgBvAGcAdABAAGUAcgBpAGMAcwBzAG8AbgAuAGMAbwBtAAAA1wAA AEQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAA0Mnqefm6zhGMggCqAEupCwIAAAAXAAAAFQAAAGYAcgBlAGQALgBiAGEAawBlAHIA QABjAGkAcwBjAG8ALgBjAG8AbQAAAODJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQs4AAAAbQBhAGkAbAB0AG8AOgBm AHIAZQBkAC4AYgBhAGsAZQByAEAAYwBpAHMAYwBvAC4AYwBvAG0AAADTAAAARAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADQyep5 +brOEYyCAKoAS6kLAgAAABcAAAAUAAAAawB1AHIAdABpAHMAQABrAHUAcgB0AGkAcwAuAHAAcAAu AHMAZQAAAODJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQs2AAAAbQBhAGkAbAB0AG8AOgBrAHUAcgB0AGkAcwBAAGsA dQByAHQAaQBzAC4AcABwAC4AcwBlAAAAzwAAAEQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA0Mnqefm6zhGMggCqAEupCwIAAAAX AAAAEwAAAGQAcgBvAG0AYQBzAGMAYQBAAGEAdgBhAHkAYQAuAGMAbwBtAAAA4Mnqefm6zhGMggCq AEupCzQAAABtAGEAaQBsAHQAbwA6AGQAcgBvAG0AYQBzAGMAYQBAAGEAdgBhAHkAYQAuAGMAbwBt AAAA0wAAAEQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA0Mnqefm6zhGMggCqAEupCwIAAAAXAAAAFAAAAHIAYgBvAG4AaQBjAGEA QABqAHUAbgBpAHAAZQByAC4AbgBlAHQAAADgyep5+brOEYyCAKoAS6kLNgAAAG0AYQBpAGwAdABv ADoAcgBiAG8AbgBpAGMAYQBAAGoAdQBuAGkAcABlAHIALgBuAGUAdAAAANMAAABEAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANDJ 6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQsCAAAAAwAAAODJ6nn5us4RjIIAqgBLqQtiAAAAbQBhAGkAbAB0AG8AOgBn AGEAdgBpAG4ALgB5AG8AdQBuAGcAQABjAG8AbgBuAGUAYwB0AGYAcgBlAGUALgBjAG8ALgB1AGsA AAB5WIH0Ox1/SK8sgl3EhSdjAAAAAKWrAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAIYCJQASAAEAnAAPAAQAAwADAAMAAAAEAAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAA AAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAA AQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAB AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAEAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAEQAAEDx/wIARAAMBAAAhAsvAAAABgBOAG8A cgBtAGEAbAAAAAIAAAAcAENKFgBQSgAAX0gBBGFKFgBtSAkEc0gJBHRICQRaAAFAAQACAFoADAQP AIkM7wAAAAkASABlAGEAZABpAG4AZwAgADEAAAAQAAEABiQBE6TwABSkPABAJgAeADUIgUNKIABL SCAAT0oEAFBKAwBRSgQAXAiBYUogAFwAAkABAAIAXAAMBBAAkUQpAAAACQBIAGUAYQBkAGkAbgBn ACAAMgAAABAAAgAGJAETpPAAFKQ8AEAmASAANQiBNgiBQ0ocAE9KBABQSgMAUUoEAFwIgV0IgWFK HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEQAQUDy/6EARAAMBQAAAAAAAAAAFgBEAGUAZgBhAHUAbAB0ACAAUABh AHIAYQBnAHIAYQBwAGgAIABGAG8AbgB0AAAAAABSAGkA8/+zAFIADAUAAAAAAAAAAAwAVABhAGIA bABlACAATgBvAHIAbQBhAGwAAAAcABf2AwAANNYGAAEKA2wANNYGAAEFAwAAYfYDAAACAAsAAAAo AGsA9P/BACgAAAUAAAAAAAAAAAcATgBvACAATABpAHMAdAAAAAIADAAAAAAAUgD+T6IA8QBSAAwC AQCJDO8AAAAOAEgAZQBhAGQAaQBuAGcAIAAxACAAQwBoAGEAcgAAAB4ANQiBQ0ogAEtIIABPSgQA UUoEAFwIgV5KAABhSiAAVAD+T6IAAQFUAAwCAgCRRCkAAAAOAEgAZQBhAGQAaQBuAGcAIAAyACAA QwBoAGEAcgAAACAANQiBNgiBQ0ocAE9KBABRSgQAXAiBXQiBXkoAAGFKHABIAJkAAQASAUgADAUS AFUVWgAAAAwAQgBhAGwAbABvAG8AbgAgAFQAZQB4AHQAAAACABEAFABDShAAT0oFAFFKBQBeSgUA YUoQAE4A/g+iACEBTgAMAxEAVRVaAAAAEQBCAGEAbABsAG8AbwBuACAAVABlAHgAdAAgAEMAaABh AHIAAAAUAENKEABPSgUAUUoFAF5KBQBhShAAigCaALMAMwGKAAwEAAB+WTQAAAAKAFQAYQBiAGwA ZQAgAEcAcgBpAGQAAABEADpWEwAT1jAAAAAABAEAAAAAAAAEAQAAAAAAAAQBAAAAAAAABAEAAAAA AAAEAQAAAAAAAAQBAABr1goAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgATABQAUEoAAF9IAQRtSAkEc0gJBHRICQQ+AB0A AQBCAT4ADAUVAMo1QQAAAA0ARgBvAG8AdABuAG8AdABlACAAVABlAHgAdAAAAAIAFAAIAENKFABh ShQAQAD+D6IAUQFAAAwDFADKNUEAAAASAEYAbwBvAHQAbgBvAHQAZQAgAFQAZQB4AHQAIABDAGgA YQByAAAABABeSgAARAAmAKIAYQFEAAwFAADKNUEAAAASAEYAbwBvAHQAbgBvAHQAZQAgAFIAZQBm AGUAcgBlAG4AYwBlAAAABwBIKgFeSgAAAIoA/k8BAHIBigAMAAAAKmztAAAACABTAHQAYQBuAGQA bwB1AHQAAABXABcAJGQEAQEBJWQEAQEEJmQEAQEBJ2QEAQEELUQAAk3GCgAAAP/Z2dkAAABOxggA AAAABAEBAE/GCAAAAAAEAQQAUMYIAAAAAAQBAQBRxggAAAAABAEEAAAIAG1ICQhzSAkINAAfQAEA ggE0AAwEGQBqEqcAAAAGAEgAZQBhAGQAZQByAAAADQAYAA3GCAACSBKQJAECAAAAOgD+T6IAkQE6 AAwCGABqEqcAAAALAEgAZQBhAGQAZQByACAAQwBoAGEAcgAAAAwAQ0oWAF5KAABhShYANAAgQAEA ogE0AAwEGwBqEqcAAAAGAEYAbwBvAHQAZQByAAAADQAaAA3GCAACSBKQJAECAAAAOgD+T6IAsQE6 AAwCGgBqEqcAAAALAEYAbwBvAHQAZQByACAAQwBoAGEAcgAAAAwAQ0oWAF5KAABhShYAcAD+TwEA AgBwAA0AAAB1PXUAAAAFAEIAZQBnAGkAbgAAAD8AHAADJAEUpHgAJGQMAQEBJWQMAQEEJ2QMAQEE TsYIAAAAAAwBAQBPxggAAAAADAEEAFHGCAAAAAAMAQQAYSQBAAsANQiBbUgJCHNICQgARAD+T8EB AgBEAAwAAABLHTgAAAADAEUAbgBkAAAAJAAdACRkAAAAACZkDAEBAU7GCAAAAP8AAAAAUMYIAAAA AAwBAQAAAEYAJwCiAOEBRgAMBQAA7y4bAAAAEQBDAG8AbQBtAGUAbgB0ACAAUgBlAGYAZQByAGUA bgBjAGUAAAAMAENKEABeSgAAYUoQADwAHgABAPIBPAAMBSAA7y4bAAAADABDAG8AbQBtAGUAbgB0 ACAAVABlAHgAdAAAAAIAHwAIAENKFABhShQARgD+D6IAAQJGAAwDHwAcQmEAAAARAEMAbwBtAG0A ZQBuAHQAIABUAGUAeAB0ACAAQwBoAGEAcgAAAAwAQ0oUAF5KAABhShQAQABqAPEB8gFAAAwFIgDv LhsAAAAPAEMAbwBtAG0AZQBuAHQAIABTAHUAYgBqAGUAYwB0AAAAAgAhAAYANQiBXAiBRgD+DwIC IQJGAAwDIQAcQmEAAAAUAEMAbwBtAG0AZQBuAHQAIABTAHUAYgBqAGUAYwB0ACAAQwBoAGEAcgAA AAYANQiBXAiBOgBVQKIAMQI6AAwEAAADTtYAAAAJAEgAeQBwAGUAcgBsAGkAbgBrAAAAEAA+KgFC KgJeSgAAcGgAAP8ASAD+D/H/QgJIAA4BAACxAqoAAAAIAFIAZQB2AGkAcwBpAG8AbgAAAAIAJAAc AENKFgBQSgAAX0gBBGFKFgBtSAkEc0gJBHRICQQAAAAA9gkAAAYAACIAAAAA/////wAAAAADAAAA BAAAACAAAAAhAAAAcwAAANoAAAAxAQAAigEAAIsBAADiAQAANwIAAIgCAADgAgAANgMAADcDAAA9 AwAASQMAAMcDAADIAwAA3AMAAAkEAAAKBAAAOQUAADoFAACzBgAAtAYAALgHAAC5BwAA1ggAANcI AAA0CQAANQkAAEAJAABBCQAATQkAAG0JAABvCQAAcAkAAHIJAABzCQAAdQkAAHYJAAB4CQAAeQkA ALUJAAC2CQAAtwkAAPMJAAD0CQAA9wkAAJgAAAAYMAAAAAAAAACAAAAAgAAAAAAAAAAAAACYAAAA GDAAAAAAAAAAgAAAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAmAAAABgwAAAAAAAAAIAAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJgAAAAA MAAAAAAAAACAAAAAgAAAAAAAAAAAAACYAAAAADAAAAAAAAAAgAAAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAmAAAAAAw AAAAAAAAAIAAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJgAAAAAMAAAAAAAAACAAAAAgAAAAAAAAAAAAACYAAAAADAA AAAAAAAAgAAAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAmAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAAIAAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJgAAAAAMAAA AAAAAACAAAAAgAAAAAAAAAAAAACYAAAAADAAAAAAAAAAgAAAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAmAAAAAAwAAAA AAAAAIAAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJgAAAAAMAAAAAAAAACAAAAAgAAAAAAAAAAAAACYAAAAADAAAAAA AAAAgAAAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAmAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAAIAAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJgAAAAAMAAAAAAA AACAAAAAgAAAAAAAAAAAAACYAAAAADAAAAAAAAAAgAAAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAmAAAAAAwAAAAAAAA AIAAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJgAAAAAMAAAAAAAAACAAAAAgAAAAAAAAAAAAACYAAAAADAAAAAAAAAA gAAAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAmAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAAIAAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJgAAAAAMAAAAAAAAACA AAAAgAAAAAAAAAAAAACYAAAAADAAAAAAAAAAgAAAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAAHmAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAAIAA AACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJgAAAAAMAAAAAAAAACAAAAAgAAAAAAAAAAAAACYAAAAADAAAAAAAAAAgAAA AIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAmAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAAIAAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJgAAAAAMAAAAAAAAACAAAAA gAAAAAAAAAAAAACYAAAAADAAAAAAAAAAgAAAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAmAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAAIAAAACA AAAAAAAAAAAAAJgAAAAAMAAAAAAAAACAAAAAgAAAAAAAAAAAAACYAAAAADAAAAAAAAAAgAAAAIAA AAAAAAAAAAAAmAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAAIAAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJgAAAAAMAAAAAAAAACAAAAAgAAA AAAAAAAAAACYAAAAADAAAAAAAAAAgAAAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAmAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAAIAAAACAAAAA AAAAAAAAAFjRADAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAADAAAAAAtwdYkQAwAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAKwHWNEAMAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAMAAAAAC3B1iRADAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAArAdY0QAwAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAwAAAAALcHWJEAMAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AACsB1jRADAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAADAAAAAAtwdYkQAwAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AKwHmEAAABowAAAAAAAAAIAAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAB5hAAAAaMAAAAAAAAACAAAAAgAAAAAAAAAAA AABY0QAwAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALcDmEAAABowAAAAAAAAAIAAAACAAAAAAAAAAAAA AFjRADAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAtwNYkQAwAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAABMCKwH AAAAAAMAAAAEAAAAIAAAACEAAABzAAAA2gAAADEBAACKAQAAiwEAAOIBAAA3AgAAiAIAAOACAAA2 AwAANwMAAD0DAABJAwAAxwMAAMgDAADcAwAACQQAAAoEAAA5BQAAOgUAALMGAAC0BgAAuAcAALkH AADWCAAA9wkAAFiRADAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAADAAAAAAAAAAAAgAFYkQAwAAAAAAAAAAACAAAAAQAA AAAAAAAAAIABAAAAEAQIABAAAAYAAACEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAViRADADAAAAAAAAAAIAAAAEAAAA AAAAAAAAgAFYkQAwBAAAAAAAAAABAAAABwAAAAAAAAAAAIABWJEAMAAQAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAACAAViRADAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgAFYkQAwABAAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAIABWJEAMAAQAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAViRADAAEAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAgAFYkQAwCgAAAAAAAAABAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAIABWNEAMAAQAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AACAAVjRADAAEAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgAFYkQAwABAAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AIABWJEAMAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAViRADAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA gAFYkQAwAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIABWJEAMAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACA AViRADAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgAFYkQAwAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAB WJEAMAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAViRADAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgAFa kQAwAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAHWpEAMAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAB1iR ADAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgAFYkQAwAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIABWJEA MAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAVqRADAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgAdYkQAw AAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIABWpEAMAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAWsBwAAAAAD AAAABgAAAAYAAAAJAAAADAAAAAwAAAAMAAAADAAAAAwAAABKAAAASgAAAIcAAACKAAAAAAYAAOYI AAA3CgAApwsAAJQRAAD2EQAACQAAAAwAAAANAAAADgAAABAAAAAABgAAsw4AAPYRAAAKAAAADwAA AAAGAAD1EQAACwAAAC4AAABWAAAAaAAAAIIAAAC0AAAA0AAAAOYAAAARAQAAJgEAAEEBAABrAQAA fwEAAJoBAADDAQAA1gEAAO4BAAAYAgAALAIAADcCAABdAgAAfAIAAIgCAACyAgAA1AIAAOACAAAI AwAAKwMAAHQDAACmAwAAxAMAAPYJAAATWBT/FYATWBT/FYATWBT/FYATWBT/FYATWBT/FYATWBT/ FYATWBT/FYwTWBT/FYwTWBT/FYwTWJT/lYAMAAAAJAAAACYAAAAoAAAARAAAAEYAAABKAAAAYgAA AGQAAABmAAAAggAAAIQAAACKAAAAEyGU/5WAExqU/5WAEyGU/5WAExqU/5WADwAA8DgAAAAAAAbw GAAAAAIIAAACAAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAgAAAEAAHvEQAAAA//8AAAAA/wCAgIAA9wAAEAAPAALw kgAAABAACPAIAAAAAQAAAAEEAAAPAAPwMAAAAA8ABPAoAAAAAQAJ8BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAgAK8AgAAAAABAAABQAAAA8ABPBCAAAAEgAK8AgAAAABBAAAAA4AAFMAC/AeAAAAvwEAABAA ywEAAAAA/wEAAAgABAMJAAAAPwMBAAEAAAAR8AQAAAABAAAA9gkAAP//AwAAAAYAj+KbFxEAAQBs J7UGBgCQ4psXEQABALSaGAAGAJHimxcQAAEATBIdABgJAAAiCQAAIgkAAPcJAAAAAAAAAQABAAAA AgACAAAAAgAgCQAAJwkAACcJAAD3CQAAAAAAAAEAAAACAAAAAgAAAEIAAAADAAAAKoB1cm46c2No ZW1hcy1taWNyb3NvZnQtY29tOm9mZmljZTpzbWFydHRhZ3MOgGNvdW50cnktcmVnaW9uAIA5AAAA AQAAACqAdXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6c21hcnR0YWdzBYBwbGFjZQCA DAAAAeCylRAAAAAAAwAAAAAAAwAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAACYAAAAsAAAA2gAAAOUAAAASAQAAJgEA ACgBAAAwAQAAMQEAAEEBAABsAQAAfwEAAIEBAACKAQAAiwEAAJoBAADEAQAA1gEAANkBAADuAQAA GQIAACwCAAAuAgAANgIAAHwEAAB+BAAAbQkAAG0JAABvCQAAbwkAAHAJAABwCQAAcgkAAHMJAAB1 CQAAdgkAAHgJAAB5CQAA9AkAAPcJAAAHABwABwAFAAcABQAHAAUABwAFAAcABQAHAAUABwAFAAcA BQAHAAUABwAFAAcABQAHAAQABwAEAAcABAACAAQABwAEAAcABAAHAAQABwACAAAAAADaAAAAMAEA ADEBAACJAQAAiwEAAOEBAADiAQAANgIAAG0DAAByAwAAfAQAANUEAABDBwAARAcAACkJAAAsCQAA bQkAAG0JAABvCQAAbwkAAHAJAABwCQAAcgkAAHMJAAB1CQAAdgkAAHgJAAB5CQAA9AkAAPcJAAAH AAUABwAFAAcABQAHAAUABwAzAAcABAAHADMABwAzAAcABAAHAAQAAgAEAAcABAAHAAQABwAEAAcA AgAAAAAAfAQAANQEAABtCQAAbQkAAG8JAABvCQAAcAkAAHAJAAByCQAAcwkAAHUJAAB2CQAAeAkA AHkJAACUCQAAlQkAALQJAAC1CQAA0gkAANMJAAD0CQAA9wkAAAcABAAHAAQABwAEAAIABAAHAAQA BwAEAAcABAAHAAUABwAFAAcABQAHAAIAAAAAAHwEAAB+BAAAbQkAAG0JAABvCQAAbwkAAHAJAABw CQAAcgkAAHMJAAB1CQAAdgkAAHgJAAB5CQAA9AkAAPcJAAAHAAQABwAEAAcABAACAAQABwAEAAcA BAAHAAQABwACABUARgkWC8RKNq//D/8P/w//D/8P/w//D/8P/w8QAIUR1hAE3ch6/w//D/8P/w// D/8P/w//D/8PEADSTEMdykBKbf8P/w//D/8P/w//D/8P/w//DxAAU3WfHtxH8Dz/D/8P/w//D/8P /w//D/8P/w8QAAI1kyWebR68/w//D/8P/w//D/8P/w//D/8PEAA1MLss+ADuYP8P/w//D/8P/w// D/8P/w//DxAAEluCLrx5mLn/D/8P/w//D/8P/w//D/8P/w8QAPwxMkKQYy6+/w//D/8P/w//D/8P /w//D/8PEAChT15GFlJ+2f8P/w//D/8P/w//D/8P/w//DxAAeTfwRpBjLr7/D/8P/w//D/8P/w// D/8P/w8QABl/nEqGcoqm/w//D/8P/w//D/8P/w//D/8PEAClENVKXB/qEv8P/w//D/8P/w//D/8P /w//DxAAADflUFwf6hL/D/8P/w//D/8P/w//D/8P/w8QAPMJwFFcH+oS/w//D/8P/w//D/8P/w// D/8PEAAMOUtTVDDqzf8P/w//D/8P/w//D/8P/w//DxAAdg16YxzrGjP/D/8P/w//D/8P/w//D/8P /w8QAP0rK2fOt5YI/w//D/8P/w//D/8P/w//D/8PEACsVIZndBg0l/8P/w//D/8P/w//D/8P/w// DxAAFzZjbT4iMmb/D/8P/w//D/8P/w//D/8P/w8QAIdjlXD4hSxR/w//D/8P/w//D/8P/w//D/8P EAAnawJ30lMe6P8P/w//D/8P/w//D/8P/w//DxAAAQAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABxAA AA+E0AIRhJj+XoTQAmCEmP5eSgAAbygAAgAAAC4AAQAAAASAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAA AA+EoAURhJj+XoSgBWCEmP5eSgAAAgABAC4AAQAAAAKCAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+E cAgRhEz/XoRwCGCETP9eSgAAAgACAC4AAQAAAACAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+EQAsR hJj+XoRAC2CEmP5eSgAAAgADAC4AAQAAAASAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+EEA4RhJj+ XoQQDmCEmP5eSgAAAgAEAC4AAQAAAAKCAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+E4BARhEz/XoTg EGCETP9eSgAAAgAFAC4AAQAAAACAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+EsBMRhJj+XoSwE2CE mP5eSgAAAgAGAC4AAQAAAASAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+EgBYRhJj+XoSAFmCEmP5e SgAAAgAHAC4AAQAAAAKCAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+EUBkRhEz/XoRQGWCETP9eSgAA AgAIAC4AAQAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABxAAAA+E0AIRhJj+XoTQAmCEmP5eSgAAbygA AgAAAC4AAQAAABcAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACxgAAA+EoAURhJj+FcYFAAGgBQZehKAFYISY /k9KAQBRSgEAbygAAQC38AEAAAACggEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhHAIEYRM/16EcAhg hEz/XkoAAAIAAgAuAAEAAAAAgAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhEALEYSY/l6EQAtghJj+ XkoAAAIAAwAuAAEAAAAEgAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhBAOEYSY/l6EEA5ghJj+XkoA AAIABAAuAAEAAAACggEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhOAQEYRM/16E4BBghEz/XkoAAAIA BQAuAAEAAAAAgAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhLATEYSY/l6EsBNghJj+XkoAAAIABgAu AAEAAAAEgAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhIAWEYSY/l6EgBZghJj+XkoAAAIABwAuAAEA AAACggEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhFAZEYRM/16EUBlghEz/XkoAAAIACAAuAAEAAAAE AAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAcQAAAPhNACEYSY/l6E0AJghJj+XkoAAG8oAAIAAAApAAEAAAAE gAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhKAFEYSY/l6EoAVghJj+XkoAAAIAAQAuAAEAAAACggEA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhHAIEYRM/16EcAhghEz/XkoAAAIAAgAuAAEAAAAAgAEAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhEALEYSY/l6EQAtghJj+XkoAAAIAAwAuAAEAAAAEgAEAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhBAOEYSY/l6EEA5ghJj+XkoAAAIABAAuAAEAAAACggEAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhOAQEYRM/16E4BBghEz/XkoAAAIABQAuAAEAAAAAgAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAQQAAAPhLATEYSY/l6EsBNghJj+XkoAAAIABgAuAAEAAAAEgAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAQQAAAPhIAWEYSY/l6EgBZghJj+XkoAAAIABwAuAAEAAAACggEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQ AAAPhFAZEYRM/16EUBlghEz/XkoAAAIACAAuAAEAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAcQAAAP hNACEYSY/l6E0AJghJj+XkoAAG8oAAIAAAAuAAEAAAAEgAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAP hKAFEYSY/l6EoAVghJj+XkoAAAIAAQAuAAEAAAACggEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhHAI EYRM/16EcAhghEz/XkoAAAIAAgAuAAEAAAAAgAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhEALEYSY /l6EQAtghJj+XkoAAAIAAwAuAAEAAAAEgAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhBAOEYSY/l6E EA5ghJj+XkoAAAIABAAuAAEAAAACggEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhOAQEYRM/16E4BBg hEz/XkoAAAIABQAuAAEAAAAAgAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhLATEYSY/l6EsBNghJj+ XkoAAAIABgAuAAEAAAAEgAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhIAWEYSY/l6EgBZghJj+XkoA AAIABwAuAAEAAAACggEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhFAZEYRM/16EUBlghEz/XkoAAAIA CAAuAAEAAAAXAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAsYAAAPhDgEEYSY/hXGBQABOAQGXoQ4BGCEmP5P SgEAUUoBAG8oAAEAt/ABAAAAFwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALGAAAD4QIBxGEmP4VxgUAAQgH Bl6ECAdghJj+T0oBAFFKAQBvKAABALfwAQAAAAKCAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+E2AkR hEz/XoTYCWCETP9eSgAAAgACAC4AAQAAAACAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+EqAwRhJj+ XoSoDGCEmP5eSgAAAgADAC4AAQAAAASAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+EeA8RhJj+XoR4 D2CEmP5eSgAAAgAEAC4AAQAAAAKCAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+ESBIRhEz/XoRIEmCE TP9eSgAAAgAFAC4AAQAAAACAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+EGBURhJj+XoQYFWCEmP5e SgAAAgAGAC4AAQAAAASAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+E6BcRhJj+XoToF2CEmP5eSgAA AgAHAC4AAQAAAAKCAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+EuBoRhEz/XoS4GmCETP9eSgAAAgAI AC4AAQAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABxAAAA+E0AIRhJj+XoTQAmCEmP5eSgAAbygAAgAA AC4AAQAAAASAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+EoAURhJj+XoSgBWCEmP5eSgAAAgABAC4A AQAAAAKCAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+EcAgRhEz/XoRwCGCETP9eSgAAAgACAC4AAQAA AACAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+EQAsRhJj+XoRAC2CEmP5eSgAAAgADAC4AAQAAAASA AQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+EEA4RhJj+XoQQDmCEmP5eSgAAAgAEAC4AAQAAAAKCAQAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+E4BARhEz/XoTgEGCETP9eSgAAAgAFAC4AAQAAAACAAQAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+EsBMRhJj+XoSwE2CEmP5eSgAAAgAGAC4AAQAAAASAAQAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+EgBYRhJj+XoSAFmCEmP5eSgAAAgAHAC4AAQAAAAKCAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAABBAAAA+EUBkRhEz/XoRQGWCETP9eSgAAAgAIAC4AAQAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAABxAAAA+E0AIRhJj+XoTQAmCEmP5eSgAAbygAAgAAAC4AAQAAAASAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAABBAAAA+EoAURhJj+XoSgBWCEmP5eSgAAAgABAC4AAQAAAAKCAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA BBAAAA+EcAgRhEz/XoRwCGCETP9eSgAAAgACAC4AAQAAAACAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAA AA+EQAsRhJj+XoRAC2CEmP5eSgAAAgADAC4AAQAAAASAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+E EA4RhJj+XoQQDmCEmP5eSgAAAgAEAC4AAQAAAAKCAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+E4BAR hEz/XoTgEGCETP9eSgAAAgAFAC4AAQAAAACAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+EsBMRhJj+ XoSwE2CEmP5eSgAAAgAGAC4AAQAAAASAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+EgBYRhJj+XoSA FmCEmP5eSgAAAgAHAC4AAQAAAAKCAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+EUBkRhEz/XoRQGWCE TP9eSgAAAgAIAC4AAQAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABxAAAA+E0AIRhJj+XoTQAmCEmP5e SgAAbygAAgAAAC4AAQAAAASAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+EoAURhJj+XoSgBWCEmP5e SgAAAgABAC4AAQAAAAKCAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+EcAgRhEz/XoRwCGCETP9eSgAA AgACAC4AAQAAAACAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+EQAsRhJj+XoRAC2CEmP5eSgAAAgAD AC4AAQAAAASAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+EEA4RhJj+XoQQDmCEmP5eSgAAAgAEAC4A AQAAAAKCAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+E4BARhEz/XoTgEGCETP9eSgAAAgAFAC4AAQAA AACAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+EsBMRhJj+XoSwE2CEmP5eSgAAAgAGAC4AAQAAAASA AQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+EgBYRhJj+XoSAFmCEmP5eSgAAAgAHAC4AAQAAAAKCAQAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+EUBkRhEz/XoRQGWCETP9eSgAAAgAIAC4AAQAAAAAAAQAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABxAAAA+E0AIRhJj+XoTQAmCEmP5eSgAAbygAAgAAAC4AAQAAAASAAQAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+EoAURhJj+XoSgBWCEmP5eSgAAAgABAC4AAQAAAAKCAQAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+EcAgRhEz/XoRwCGCETP9eSgAAAgACAC4AAQAAAACAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAABBAAAA+EQAsRhJj+XoRAC2CEmP5eSgAAAgADAC4AAQAAAASAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAABBAAAA+EEA4RhJj+XoQQDmCEmP5eSgAAAgAEAC4AAQAAAAKCAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA BBAAAA+E4BARhEz/XoTgEGCETP9eSgAAAgAFAC4AAQAAAACAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAA AA+EsBMRhJj+XoSwE2CEmP5eSgAAAgAGAC4AAQAAAASAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+E gBYRhJj+XoSAFmCEmP5eSgAAAgAHAC4AAQAAAAKCAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+EUBkR hEz/XoRQGWCETP9eSgAAAgAIAC4AAQAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABxAAAA+E0AIRhJj+ XoTQAmCEmP5eSgAAbygAAgAAAC4AAQAAAASAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+EoAURhJj+ XoSgBWCEmP5eSgAAAgABAC4AAQAAAAKCAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+EcAgRhEz/XoRw CGCETP9eSgAAAgACAC4AAQAAAACAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+EQAsRhJj+XoRAC2CE mP5eSgAAAgADAC4AAQAAAASAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+EEA4RhJj+XoQQDmCEmP5e SgAAAgAEAC4AAQAAAAKCAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+E4BARhEz/XoTgEGCETP9eSgAA AgAFAC4AAQAAAACAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+EsBMRhJj+XoSwE2CEmP5eSgAAAgAG AC4AAQAAAASAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+EgBYRhJj+XoSAFmCEmP5eSgAAAgAHAC4A AQAAAAKCAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBAAAA+EUBkRhEz/XoRQGWCETP9eSgAAAgAIAC4AAAAA ABcAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADxAAAA+E0AIRhJj+XoTQAmCEmP5PSgEAUEoAAFFKAQBvKAAB ALfwAQAAABeAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACxAAAA+EoAURhJj+XoSgBWCEmP5PSgYAUUoGAG8o AAEAbwABAAAAF4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALEAAAD4RwCBGEmP5ehHAIYISY/k9KBwBRSgcA bygAAQCn8AEAAAAXgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAsQAAAPhEALEYSY/l6EQAtghJj+T0oBAFFK AQBvKAABALfwAQAAABeAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACxAAAA+EEA4RhJj+XoQQDmCEmP5PSgYA UUoGAG8oAAEAbwABAAAAF4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALEAAAD4TgEBGEmP5ehOAQYISY/k9K BwBRSgcAbygAAQCn8AEAAAAXgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAsQAAAPhLATEYSY/l6EsBNghJj+ T0oBAFFKAQBvKAABALfwAQAAABeAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACxAAAA+EgBYRhJj+XoSAFmCE mP5PSgYAUUoGAG8oAAEAbwABAAAAF4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALEAAAD4RQGRGEmP5ehFAZ YISY/k9KBwBRSgcAbygAAQCn8AEAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAcQAAAPhNACEYSY/l6E 0AJghJj+XkoAAG8oAAIAAAAuAAEAAAAXgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAsQAAAPhKAFEYSY/l6E oAVghJj+T0oGAFFKBgBvKAABAG8AAQAAABeAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACxAAAA+EcAgRhJj+ XoRwCGCEmP5PSgcAUUoHAG8oAAEAp/ABAAAAF4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALEAAAD4RACxGE mP5ehEALYISY/k9KAQBRSgEAbygAAQC38AEAAAAXgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAsQAAAPhBAO EYSY/l6EEA5ghJj+T0oGAFFKBgBvKAABAG8AAQAAABeAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACxAAAA+E 4BARhJj+XoTgEGCEmP5PSgcAUUoHAG8oAAEAp/ABAAAAF4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALEAAA D4SwExGEmP5ehLATYISY/k9KAQBRSgEAbygAAQC38AEAAAAXgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAsQ AAAPhIAWEYSY/l6EgBZghJj+T0oGAFFKBgBvKAABAG8AAQAAABeAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA CxAAAA+EUBkRhJj+XoRQGWCEmP5PSgcAUUoHAG8oAAEAp/ABAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAHEAAAD4TQAhGEmP5ehNACYISY/l5KAABvKAACAAAALgABAAAAF4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAALEAAAD4SgBRGEmP5ehKAFYISY/k9KBgBRSgYAbygAAQBvAAEAAAAXgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAsQAAAPhHAIEYSY/l6EcAhghJj+T0oHAFFKBwBvKAABAKfwAQAAABeAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAACxAAAA+EQAsRhJj+XoRAC2CEmP5PSgEAUUoBAG8oAAEAt/ABAAAAF4AAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAALEAAAD4QQDhGEmP5ehBAOYISY/k9KBgBRSgYAbygAAQBvAAEAAAAXgAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAsQAAAPhOAQEYSY/l6E4BBghJj+T0oHAFFKBwBvKAABAKfwAQAAABeAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACxAAAA+EsBMRhJj+XoSwE2CEmP5PSgEAUUoBAG8oAAEAt/ABAAAAF4AAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALEAAAD4SAFhGEmP5ehIAWYISY/k9KBgBRSgYAbygAAQBvAAEAAAAXgAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAsQAAAPhFAZEYSY/l6EUBlghJj+T0oHAFFKBwBvKAABAKfwAQAAAAAA AQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABxAAAA+E0AIRhJj+XoTQAmCEmP5eSgAAbygAAgAAAC4AAQAAABeA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACxAAAA+EoAURhJj+XoSgBWCEmP5PSgYAUUoGAG8oAAEAbwABAAAA F4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALEAAAD4RwCBGEmP5ehHAIYISY/k9KBwBRSgcAbygAAQCn8AEA AAAXgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAsQAAAPhEALEYSY/l6EQAtghJj+T0oBAFFKAQBvKAABALfw AQAAABeAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACxAAAA+EEA4RhJj+XoQQDmCEmP5PSgYAUUoGAG8oAAEA bwABAAAAF4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALEAAAD4TgEBGEmP5ehOAQYISY/k9KBwBRSgcAbygA AQCn8AEAAAAXgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAsQAAAPhLATEYSY/l6EsBNghJj+T0oBAFFKAQBv KAABALfwAQAAABeAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACxAAAA+EgBYRhJj+XoSAFmCEmP5PSgYAUUoG AG8oAAEAbwABAAAAF4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALEAAAD4RQGRGEmP5ehFAZYISY/k9KBwBR SgcAbygAAQCn8AEAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAcQAAAPhNACEYSY/l6E0AJghJj+XkoA AG8oAAIAAAAuAAEAAAAEgAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhKAFEYSY/l6EoAVghJj+XkoA AAIAAQAuAAEAAAACggEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhHAIEYRM/16EcAhghEz/XkoAAAIA AgAuAAEAAAAAgAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhEALEYSY/l6EQAtghJj+XkoAAAIAAwAu AAEAAAAEgAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhBAOEYSY/l6EEA5ghJj+XkoAAAIABAAuAAEA AAACggEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhOAQEYRM/16E4BBghEz/XkoAAAIABQAuAAEAAAAA gAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhLATEYSY/l6EsBNghJj+XkoAAAIABgAuAAEAAAAEgAEA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhIAWEYSY/l6EgBZghJj+XkoAAAIABwAuAAEAAAACggEAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhFAZEYRM/16EUBlghEz/XkoAAAIACAAuAAEAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAcQAAAPhNACEYSY/l6E0AJghJj+XkoAAG8oAAIAAAAuAAEAAAAEgAEAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhKAFEYSY/l6EoAVghJj+XkoAAAIAAQAuAAEAAAACggEAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhHAIEYRM/16EcAhghEz/XkoAAAIAAgAuAAEAAAAAgAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAQQAAAPhEALEYSY/l6EQAtghJj+XkoAAAIAAwAuAAEAAAAEgAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAQQAAAPhBAOEYSY/l6EEA5ghJj+XkoAAAIABAAuAAEAAAACggEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQ AAAPhOAQEYRM/16E4BBghEz/XkoAAAIABQAuAAEAAAAAgAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAP hLATEYSY/l6EsBNghJj+XkoAAAIABgAuAAEAAAAEgAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhIAW EYSY/l6EgBZghJj+XkoAAAIABwAuAAEAAAACggEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhFAZEYRM /16EUBlghEz/XkoAAAIACAAuAAEAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAcQAAAPhM0CEYSY/l6E zQJghJj+XkoAAG8oAAIAAAAuAAEAAAAEgAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhJ0FEYSY/l6E nQVghJj+XkoAAAIAAQAuAAEAAAACggEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhG0IEYRM/16EbQhg hEz/XkoAAAIAAgAuAAEAAAAAgAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhD0LEYSY/l6EPQtghJj+ XkoAAAIAAwAuAAEAAAAEgAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhA0OEYSY/l6EDQ5ghJj+XkoA AAIABAAuAAEAAAACggEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhN0QEYRM/16E3RBghEz/XkoAAAIA BQAuAAEAAAAAgAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhK0TEYSY/l6ErRNghJj+XkoAAAIABgAu AAEAAAAEgAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhH0WEYSY/l6EfRZghJj+XkoAAAIABwAuAAEA AAACggEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhE0ZEYRM/16ETRlghEz/XkoAAAIACAAuAAEAAAAA AAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAcQAAAPhNACEYSY/l6E0AJghJj+XkoAAG8oAAIAAAAuAAEAAAAE gAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhKAFEYSY/l6EoAVghJj+XkoAAAIAAQAuAAEAAAACggEA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhHAIEYRM/16EcAhghEz/XkoAAAIAAgAuAAEAAAAAgAEAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhEALEYSY/l6EQAtghJj+XkoAAAIAAwAuAAEAAAAEgAEAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhBAOEYSY/l6EEA5ghJj+XkoAAAIABAAuAAEAAAACggEAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAQQAAAPhOAQEYRM/16E4BBghEz/XkoAAAIABQAuAAEAAAAAgAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAQQAAAPhLATEYSY/l6EsBNghJj+XkoAAAIABgAuAAEAAAAEgAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAQQAAAPhIAWEYSY/l6EgBZghJj+XkoAAAIABwAuAAEAAAACggEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQQ AAAPhFAZEYRM/16EUBlghEz/XkoAAAIACAAuAAEAAAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAcYAAAP hNACEYSY/hXGBQAB0AIGXoTQAmCEmP5eSgAAbygAAgAAACkAAQAAAASAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAABBgAAA+EoAURhJj+FcYFAAGgBQZehKAFYISY/l5KAAACAAEALgABAAAAAoIBAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAEGAAAD4RwCBGETP8VxgUAAXAIBl6EcAhghEz/XkoAAAIAAgAuAAEAAAAAgAEAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQYAAAPhEALEYSY/hXGBQABQAsGXoRAC2CEmP5eSgAAAgADAC4AAQAAAASA AQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBgAAA+EEA4RhJj+FcYFAAEQDgZehBAOYISY/l5KAAACAAQALgAB AAAAAoIBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEGAAAD4TgEBGETP8VxgUAAeAQBl6E4BBghEz/XkoAAAIA BQAuAAEAAAAAgAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQYAAAPhLATEYSY/hXGBQABsBMGXoSwE2CEmP5e SgAAAgAGAC4AAQAAAASAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBgAAA+EgBYRhJj+FcYFAAGAFgZehIAW YISY/l5KAAACAAcALgABAAAAAoIBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEGAAAD4RQGRGETP8VxgUAAVAZ Bl6EUBlghEz/XkoAAAIACAAuAAcAAAAXAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA8QAAAPhNACEYSY/l6E 0AJghJj+T0oBAFBKAABRSgEAbygAAQC38AEAAAAXgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAsQAAAPhKAF EYSY/l6EoAVghJj+T0oGAFFKBgBvKAABAG8AAQAAABeAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACxAAAA+E cAgRhJj+XoRwCGCEmP5PSgcAUUoHAG8oAAEAp/ABAAAAF4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALEAAA D4RACxGEmP5ehEALYISY/k9KAQBRSgEAbygAAQC38AEAAAAXgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAsQ AAAPhBAOEYSY/l6EEA5ghJj+T0oGAFFKBgBvKAABAG8AAQAAABeAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA CxAAAA+E4BARhJj+XoTgEGCEmP5PSgcAUUoHAG8oAAEAp/ABAAAAF4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAALEAAAD4SwExGEmP5ehLATYISY/k9KAQBRSgEAbygAAQC38AEAAAAXgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAsQAAAPhIAWEYSY/l6EgBZghJj+T0oGAFFKBgBvKAABAG8AAQAAABeAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAACxAAAA+EUBkRhJj+XoRQGWCEmP5PSgcAUUoHAG8oAAEAp/ABAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAHEAAAD4TQAhGEmP5ehNACYISY/l5KAABvKAACAAAALgABAAAABIABAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAEEAAAD4SgBRGEmP5ehKAFYISY/l5KAAACAAEALgABAAAAAoIBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAEEAAAD4RwCBGETP9ehHAIYIRM/15KAAACAAIALgABAAAAAIABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAEEAAAD4RACxGEmP5ehEALYISY/l5KAAACAAMALgABAAAABIABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAE EAAAD4QQDhGEmP5ehBAOYISY/l5KAAACAAQALgABAAAAAoIBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEEAAA D4TgEBGETP9ehOAQYIRM/15KAAACAAUALgABAAAAAIABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEEAAAD4Sw ExGEmP5ehLATYISY/l5KAAACAAYALgABAAAABIABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEEAAAD4SAFhGE mP5ehIAWYISY/l5KAAACAAcALgABAAAAAoIBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEEAAAD4RQGRGETP9e hFAZYIRM/15KAAACAAgALgAVAAAA/SsrZwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPMJwFEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACHY5Vw AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADDlLUwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFN1nx4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAClENVKAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAA/DEyQgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADUwuywAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN+VQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEluCLgAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAHk38EYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAB2DXpjAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARgkWCwAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AKFPXkYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnawJ3AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA0kxDHQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIUR1hAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAACsVIZnAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFzZjbQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAI1kyUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAZ f5xKAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA//////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////8VAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA//8VAAAAEgAPAAkEGQAJBBsACQQPAAkE GQAJBBsACQQPAAkEGQAJBBsACQQSAA8ACQQBAAkEGwAJBA8ACQQZAAkEGwAJBA8ACQQZAAkEGwAJ BBIAFwAJBBkACQQbAAkEDwAJBBkACQQbAAkEDwAJBBkACQQbAAkEEgAPAAkEGQAJBBsACQQPAAkE GQAJBBsACQQPAAkEGQAJBBsACQQSAAEACQQBAAkEGwAJBA8ACQQZAAkEGwAJBA8ACQQZAAkEGwAJ BBIADwAJBBkACQQbAAkEDwAJBBkACQQbAAkEDwAJBBkACQQbAAkEEgAPAAkEGQAJBBsACQQPAAkE GQAJBBsACQQPAAkEGQAJBBsACQQSAA8ACQQZAAkEGwAJBA8ACQQZAAkEGwAJBA8ACQQZAAkEGwAJ BBIADwAJBBkACQQbAAkEDwAJBBkACQQbAAkEDwAJBBkACQQbAAkEEgAPAAkEGQAJBBsACQQPAAkE GQAJBBsACQQPAAkEGQAJBBsACQQSAJI1/oMDAAkEBQAJBAEACQQDAAkEBQAJBAEACQQDAAkEBQAJ BBIADwAJBAMACQQFAAkEAQAJBAMACQQFAAkEAQAJBAMACQQFAAkEEgAPAAkEAwAJBAUACQQBAAkE AwAJBAUACQQBAAkEAwAJBAUACQQSAA8ACQQDAAkEBQAJBAEACQQDAAkEBQAJBAEACQQDAAkEBQAJ BBIADwAJBBkACQQbAAkEDwAJBBkACQQbAAkEDwAJBBkACQQbAAkEEgAPAAkEGQAJBBsACQQPAAkE GQAJBBsACQQPAAkEGQAJBBsACQQSABpM4owZAAkEGwAJBA8ACQQZAAkEGwAJBA8ACQQZAAkEGwAJ BBIADwAJBBkACQQbAAkEDwAJBBkACQQbAAkEDwAJBBkACQQbAAkEEgARAAkEGQAJBBsACQQPAAkE GQAJBBsACQQPAAkEGQAJBBsACQQSABQTgK4DAAkEBQAJBAEACQQDAAkEBQAJBAEACQQDAAkEBQAJ BBIADwAJBBkACQQbAAkEDwAJBBkACQQbAAkEDwAJBBkACQQbAAkEAwABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKkS9fwAAAAAAAAAAAAECAAIAxQAAAAQAAAAIAAAA5QAAAAAAAAALAAAAEzsC ALBmAgBVWgMAYQcFALVqBQBDBAcAc0cHAE4RCAB2SAkAc24JAKRvCgDGAA0AeloNAB4BDwDhPA8A 4mITAEwrFQCCLxYA4xkXAPJqGQDvLhsA4i8bAH9CGwBaQR0A7kYeAL9YHgCmWx4A8VsfAO8TIACO GiAATXYiABkUJQA7ayUAGhkmAGRCJwCRRCkAOhMqAFtjKgCfcy4AhAsvAM5kLwB+WTQAuF02AEsd OAATVjgADng8AN0aQADKNUEApE1EAONxRAApNUcAPgVIAPczSAB8f0gAvjhJAMt1SwBeUVEAVW9R AP4dUwB0FFYAsiVWAKQxVwD6M1cAJwVZAEFZWQBVFVoA3kJaAH8JWwDbcVwA72xdAGcPXgBTRF4A HEJhAOlzYgBHZ2MAbiRkAMMoZACPYGQAzxhmAFg7aACmWGoATUZtALlubwCQeG8AAClxAGMvcQB1 PXUAj1d1AHAbdgCkE3cAA1p4ANFufQAFcX0AqEF+ABYmgwAWR4UAAmqGAE0xhwDCD4gAoGSIAPR1 iABRcokAvQiNALkojQB0fo8AggqSAOsOkgAEapIAqWOTAJYylQAJT5UAp0+VAJZxlQDjPpoAFgWb AF4JnQBCOZ0ApEGdAIZQnQD8d54AjiiiAIgcowCHMaQAxjukAGE9pgDAT6YAahKnAPU2qQAbQakA sQKqAFUQrQDsaq4AJHuuAGoyrwCzWLEAXQGyAA4bswAMWLQA5WC2AJZWtwB9TrgAWVa4AMB9uQA8 HLoAzmC7ABNrvAC7S8AAun7AAJsQxADvPccA+HDHACcFyADeNckA6wXKAFoeygB8P8oAiGLLAJME zAAdU80AbQ/OACdzzgDnc84AKwbTAEcP1QDGJNYAA07WAOU31wBtYNgA7n3ZAKMx2gAmM90AF0Xh AJU14gBqKuQAcELkACos5gAnEOoAJk7qADYT6wD3IusATzDsAAlC7AAqbO0AxH7uAIkM7wDFEO8A wDnwAJ4w8QDlIfQASkL0AAFW9wBfUPgAF0z5APgL/ABzRvwAN0H9ALsa/gD/QAGAAQB9BAAAfQQA AJCblRABAAEAfQQAAAAAAAB9BAAAAAAAAAIQAAAAAAAAAPYJAABgAAAQAEAAAP//AQAAAAcAVQBu AGsAbgBvAHcAbgD//wEACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA//8BAAAAAAD//wAAAgD//wAAAAD//wAAAgD//wAA AAAIAAAARxaQAQAAAgIGAwUEBQIDBIc6ACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD/AQAAAAAAAFQAaQBtAGUAcwAg AE4AZQB3ACAAUgBvAG0AYQBuAAAANRaQAQIABQUBAgEHBgIFBwAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAACA AAAAAFMAeQBtAGIAbwBsAAAAMyaQAQAAAgsGBAICAgICBIc6ACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD/AQAAAAAA AEEAcgBpAGEAbAAAADcmkAEAAAIPBQICAgQDAgTvAgCgeyAAQAAAAAAAAAAAnwAAAAAAAABDAGEA bABpAGIAcgBpAAAANxaQAQAAAgQFAwUEBgMCBO8CAKBLAABAAAAAAAAAAACfAAAAAAAAAEMAYQBt AGIAcgBpAGEAAAA1JgAAAAACCwYEAwUEBAIEh3oAYQAAAIAIAAAAAAAAAP8BAQAAAAAAVABhAGgA bwBtAGEAAAA/NZABAAACBwMJAgIFAgQEh3oAIAAAAIAIAAAAAAAAAP8BAAAAAAAAQwBvAHUAcgBp AGUAcgAgAE4AZQB3AAAAOwaQAQIABQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAAAAAFcA aQBuAGcAZABpAG4AZwBzAAAAIgAEAAEIiBgA8NACAABoAQAAAADXidNG2YnTRqEr04YDAAcAAABo AQAABQgAAAEABAAAAAQAAxARAAAAaAEAAAUIAAABAAQAAAARAAAAAAAAACADAPAQAAAAAQAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKAFoAVuALQAgYISNAAAEAAZAGQAAAAZAAAAaQkAAGkJAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAC AAAAAAAAAAAAADKDEQDwEAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABIUAAAAAAJ8P8P AQAkUAAAAAAAAP///3////9/////f////3////9/////f////39VFVoAAAAAADIAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAP//EgAAAAAAAAABACAAAAAAAAAABwBCAHUAbABsAGQAbwBnAAYARABBAEwATABBAE4A AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAABgAAABUAAAAAAAwAAQAMAAIADAADAAwABAAMAAUADAAG AAwABwAMAAgADAAJAAwACgAMAAsADAAMAAwADQAMAA4ADAAPAAwAEAAMABEADAASAAwAEwAMABQA DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/v8AAAUBAgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAOCFn/L5 T2gQq5EIACsns9kwAAAAgAEAABIAAAABAAAAmAAAAAIAAACgAAAAAwAAAKwAAAAEAAAAuAAAAAUA AADIAAAABgAAANQAAAAHAAAA4AAAAAgAAAD0AAAACQAAAAQBAAASAAAAEAEAAAoAAAAwAQAACwAA ADwBAAAMAAAASAEAAA0AAABUAQAADgAAAGABAAAPAAAAaAEAABAAAABwAQAAEwAAAHgBAAACAAAA 5AQAAB4AAAAEAAAAIAAAAB4AAAAEAAAAAAAAAB4AAAAIAAAAQnVsbGRvZwAeAAAABAAAAAAAAAAe AAAABAAAAAAAAAAeAAAADAAAAE5vcm1hbC5kb3QAAB4AAAAIAAAAREFMTEFOAAAeAAAABAAAADMA AAAeAAAAGAAAAE1pY3Jvc29mdCBPZmZpY2UgV29yZAAAAEAAAAAA6lb6AAAAAEAAAAAA1qjPwJ3J AUAAAAAAQp668qbJAUAAAAAAziQC86bJAQMAAAABAAAAAwAAAGgBAAADAAAABQgAAAMAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP7/AAAFAQIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAAAAC1c3VnC4bEJOXCAAr LPmuRAAAAAXVzdWcLhsQk5cIACss+a4sAQAA6AAAAAwAAAABAAAAaAAAAA8AAABwAAAABQAAAHwA AAAGAAAAhAAAABEAAACMAAAAFwAAAJQAAAALAAAAnAAAABAAAACkAAAAEwAAAKwAAAAWAAAAtAAA AA0AAAC8AAAADAAAAMoAAAACAAAA5AQAAB4AAAAEAAAAIAAAAAMAAAARAAAAAwAAAAQAAAADAAAA aQkAAAMAAAAPJwsACwAAAAAAAAALAAAAAAAAAAsAAAAAAAAACwAAAAAAAAAeEAAAAQAAAAIAAAAg AAwQAAACAAAAHgAAAAYAAABUaXRsZQADAAAAAQAAAJQEAAADAAAAAAAAACAAAAABAAAAOAAAAAIA AABAAAAAAQAAAAIAAAAMAAAAX1BJRF9ITElOS1MAAgAAAOQEAABBAAAATAQAADwAAAADAAAAeABb AAMAAAAbAAAAAwAAAAAAAAADAAAABQAAAB8AAAAlAAAAbQBhAGkAbAB0AG8AOgBnAGEAdgBpAG4A LgB5AG8AdQBuAGcAQABjAG8AbgBuAGUAYwB0AGYAcgBlAGUALgBjAG8ALgB1AGsAAAAAAB8AAAAB AAAAAACSEQMAAABCAHwAAwAAABgAAAADAAAAAAAAAAMAAAAFAAAAHwAAABoAAABtAGEAaQBsAHQA bwA6AHQAbwB3AG4AcwBsAGUAeQBAAGMAaQBzAGMAbwAuAGMAbwBtAAAAHwAAAAEAAAAAAJIRAwAA AC0ARwADAAAAFQAAAAMAAAAAAAAAAwAAAAUAAAAfAAAAHAAAAG0AYQBpAGwAdABvADoAagBhAHIA aQAuAGEAcgBrAGsAbwBAAHAAaQB1AGgAYQAuAG4AZQB0AAAAHwAAAAEAAAAAAJIRAwAAAC4ABAAD AAAAEgAAAAMAAAAAAAAAAwAAAAUAAAAfAAAAGAAAAG0AYQBpAGwAdABvADoAcgBkAHIAbwBtAHMA QABjAGkAcwBjAG8ALgBjAG8AbQAAAB8AAAABAAAAAACSEQMAAABXAGsAAwAAAA8AAAADAAAAAAAA AAMAAAAFAAAAHwAAABsAAABtAGEAaQBsAHQAbwA6AHIAYgBvAG4AaQBjAGEAQABqAHUAbgBpAHAA ZQByAC4AbgBlAHQAAAAAAB8AAAABAAAAAACSEQMAAABFAGUAAwAAAAwAAAADAAAAAAAAAAMAAAAF AAAAHwAAABoAAABtAGEAaQBsAHQAbwA6AGQAcgBvAG0AYQBzAGMAYQBAAGEAdgBhAHkAYQAuAGMA bwBtAAAAHwAAAAEAAAAAAJIRAwAAAGUAGwADAAAACQAAAAMAAAAAAAAAAwAAAAUAAAAfAAAAGwAA AG0AYQBpAGwAdABvADoAawB1AHIAdABpAHMAQABrAHUAcgB0AGkAcwAuAHAAcAAuAHMAZQAAAAAA HwAAAAEAAAAAAJIRAwAAADsAQAADAAAABgAAAAMAAAAAAAAAAwAAAAUAAAAfAAAAHAAAAG0AYQBp AGwAdABvADoAZgByAGUAZAAuAGIAYQBrAGUAcgBAAGMAaQBzAGMAbwAuAGMAbwBtAAAAHwAAAAEA AAAAAJIRAwAAADoAVAADAAAAAwAAAAMAAAAAAAAAAwAAAAUAAAAfAAAAIwAAAG0AYQBpAGwAdABv ADoAYwBoAHIAaQBzAHQAaQBhAG4ALgB2AG8AZwB0AEAAZQByAGkAYwBzAHMAbwBuAC4AYwBvAG0A AAAAAB8AAAABAAAAAACSEQMAAAAVADgAAwAAAAAAAAADAAAAAAAAAAMAAAAFAAAAHwAAABkAAABt AGEAaQBsAHQAbwA6AGYAZQBuAG4AZQByAEAAZgBlAG4AcgBvAG4ALgBjAG8AbQAAAAAAHwAAAAEA AAAAAJIRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAgAAAAMAAAAEAAAABQAAAAYAAAAHAAAACAAAAAkAAAAKAAAACwAAAAwAAAAN AAAADgAAAA8AAAAQAAAAEQAAAP7///8TAAAAFAAAABUAAAAWAAAAFwAAABgAAAAZAAAAGgAAABsA AAAcAAAAHQAAAB4AAAAfAAAAIAAAACEAAAAiAAAAIwAAACQAAAAlAAAAJgAAACcAAAAoAAAAKQAA ACoAAAArAAAALAAAAC0AAAD+////LwAAADAAAAAxAAAAMgAAADMAAAA0AAAANQAAADYAAAA3AAAA OAAAADkAAAA6AAAAOwAAADwAAAA9AAAAPgAAAD8AAABAAAAAQQAAAEIAAABDAAAARAAAAEUAAABG AAAARwAAAEgAAABJAAAASgAAAEsAAABMAAAATQAAAE4AAABPAAAAUAAAAFEAAABSAAAAUwAAAFQA AABVAAAAVgAAAFcAAABYAAAA/v///1oAAABbAAAAXAAAAF0AAABeAAAAXwAAAGAAAAD+////YgAA AGMAAABkAAAAZQAAAGYAAABnAAAAaAAAAP7////9////awAAAP7////+/////v////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /////////1IAbwBvAHQAIABFAG4AdAByAHkAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWAAUB//////////8DAAAABgkCAAAAAADAAAAAAAAARgAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ABBpoA3zpskBbQAAAIAAAAAAAAAARABhAHQAYQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAoAAgH///////////////8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASAAAALDcAAAAAAAAxAFQAYQBiAGwAZQAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADgACAQEAAAAGAAAA//// /wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAC4AAACUVAAAAAAAAFcAbwByAGQA RABvAGMAdQBtAGUAbgB0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAa AAIBAgAAAAUAAAD/////AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADsi AAAAAAAABQBTAHUAbQBtAGEAcgB5AEkAbgBmAG8AcgBtAGEAdABpAG8AbgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACgAAgH///////////////8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAABZAAAAABAAAAAAAAAFAEQAbwBjAHUAbQBlAG4AdABTAHUAbQBtAGEAcgB5AEkAbgBm AG8AcgBtAGEAdABpAG8AbgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOAACAQQAAAD//////////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGEAAAAAEAAAAAAAAAEAQwBvAG0AcABPAGIAagAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASAAIA//////////////// AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAD///////////////8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAABAAAA/v////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /////wEA/v8DCgAA/////wYJAgAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAEYfAAAATWljcm9zb2Z0IE9mZmljZSBXb3Jk IERvY3VtZW50AAoAAABNU1dvcmREb2MAEAAAAFdvcmQuRG9jdW1lbnQuOAD0ObJxAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAUgBvAG8AdAAgAEUAbgB0AHIAeQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAABYABQH//////////wMAAAAGCQIAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAwH6n pS+ryQFtAAAAgAAAAAAAAABEAGEAdABhAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACgACAf///////////////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABIAAAAsNwAAAAAAADEAVABhAGIAbABlAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOAAIBAQAAAAYAAAD/////AAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALgAAAJRUAAAAAAAAVwBvAHIAZABEAG8A YwB1AG0AZQBuAHQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABoAAgEC AAAABQAAAP////8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOyIAAAAA AAABAAAAAgAAAAMAAAAEAAAABQAAAAYAAAAHAAAACAAAAAkAAAAKAAAACwAAAAwAAAANAAAADgAA AA8AAAAQAAAAEQAAAP7///8TAAAAFAAAABUAAAAWAAAAFwAAABgAAAAZAAAAGgAAABsAAAAcAAAA HQAAAB4AAAAfAAAAIAAAACEAAAAiAAAAIwAAACQAAAAlAAAAJgAAACcAAAAoAAAAKQAAACoAAAAr AAAALAAAAC0AAAD+////LwAAADAAAAAxAAAAMgAAADMAAAA0AAAANQAAADYAAAA3AAAAOAAAADkA AAA6AAAAOwAAADwAAAA9AAAAPgAAAD8AAABAAAAAQQAAAEIAAABDAAAARAAAAEUAAABGAAAARwAA AEgAAABJAAAASgAAAEsAAABMAAAATQAAAE4AAABPAAAAUAAAAFEAAABSAAAAUwAAAFQAAABVAAAA VgAAAFcAAABYAAAA/v///1oAAABbAAAAXAAAAF0AAABeAAAAXwAAAGAAAAD+//////////////// ///////////////////////////////////////////////+/////v///3gAAAD9////cQAAAHIA AABzAAAAdAAAAHUAAAB2AAAAdwAAAP7////+//////////////////////////////////////// //7/AAAFAQIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAAAAC1c3VnC4bEJOXCAArLPmuRAAAAAXVzdWcLhsQ k5cIACss+a4sAQAA6AAAAAwAAAABAAAAaAAAAA8AAABwAAAABQAAAHwAAAAGAAAAhAAAABEAAACM AAAAFwAAAJQAAAALAAAAnAAAABAAAACkAAAAEwAAAKwAAAAWAAAAtAAAAA0AAAC8AAAADAAAAMoA AAACAAAA5AQAAB4AAAAEAAAAIAAAAAMAAAARAAAAAwAAAAQAAAADAAAAaQkAAAMAAAAPJwsACwAA AAAAAAALAAAAAAAAAAsAAAAAAAAACwAAAAAAAAAeEAAAAQAAAAIAAAAgAAwQAAACAAAAHgAAAAYA AABUaXRsZQADAAAAAQAAAJQEAAADAAAAAAAAACAAAAABAAAAOAAAAAIAAABAAAAAAQAAAAIAAAAM AAAAX1BJRF9ITElOS1MAAgAAAOQEAABBAAAATAQAADwAAAADAAAAeABbAAMAAAAbAAAAAwAAAAAA AAADAAAABQAAAB8AAAAlAAAAbQBhAGkAbAB0AG8AOgBnAGEAdgBpAG4ALgB5AG8AdQBuAGcAQABj AG8AbgBuAGUAYwB0AGYAcgBlAGUALgBjAG8ALgB1AGsAAAAAAB8AAAABAAAAAACSEQMAAABCAHwA AwAAABgAAAADAAAAAAAAAAMAAAAFAAAAHwAAABoAAABtAGEAaQBsAHQAbwA6AHQAbwB3AG4AcwBs AGUAeQBAAGMAaQBzAGMAbwAuAGMAbwBtAAAAHwAAAAEAAAAAAJIRAwAAAC0ARwADAAAAFQAAAAMA AAAAAAAAAwAAAAUAAAAfAAAAHAAAAG0AYQBpAGwAdABvADoAagBhAHIAaQAuAGEAcgBrAGsAbwBA AHAAaQB1AGgAYQAuAG4AZQB0AAAAHwAAAAEAAAAAAJIRAwAAAC4ABAADAAAAEgAAAAMAAAAAAAAA AwAAAAUAAAAfAAAAGAAAAG0AYQBpAGwAdABvADoAcgBkAHIAbwBtAHMAQABjAGkAcwBjAG8ALgBj AG8AbQAAAB8AAAABAAAAAACSEQMAAABXAGsAAwAAAA8AAAADAAAAAAAAAAMAAAAFAAAAHwAAABsA AABtAGEAaQBsAHQAbwA6AHIAYgBvAG4AaQBjAGEAQABqAHUAbgBpAHAAZQByAC4AbgBlAHQAAAAA AB8AAAABAAAAAACSEQMAAABFAGUAAwAAAAwAAAADAAAAAAAAAAMAAAAFAAAAHwAAABoAAABtAGEA aQBsAHQAbwA6AGQAcgBvAG0AYQBzAGMAYQBAAGEAdgBhAHkAYQAuAGMAbwBtAAAAHwAAAAEAAAAA AJIRAwAAAGUAGwADAAAACQAAAAMAAAAAAAAAAwAAAAUAAAAfAAAAGwAAAG0AYQBpAGwAdABvADoA awB1AHIAdABpAHMAQABrAHUAcgB0AGkAcwAuAHAAcAAuAHMAZQAAAAAAHwAAAAEAAAAAAJIRAwAA ADsAQAADAAAABgAAAAMAAAAAAAAAAwAAAAUAAAAfAAAAHAAAAG0AYQBpAGwAdABvADoAZgByAGUA ZAAuAGIAYQBrAGUAcgBAAGMAaQBzAGMAbwAuAGMAbwBtAAAAHwAAAAEAAAAAAJIRAwAAADoAVAAD AAAAAwAAAAMAAAAAAAAAAwAAAAUAAAAfAAAAIwAAAG0AYQBpAGwAdABvADoAYwBoAHIAaQBzAHQA aQBhAG4ALgB2AG8AZwB0AEAAZQByAGkAYwBzAHMAbwBuAC4AYwBvAG0AAAAAAB8AAAABAAAAAACS EQMAAAAVADgAAwAAAAAAAAADAAAAAAAAAAMAAAAFAAAAHwAAABkAAABtAGEAaQBsAHQAbwA6AGYA ZQBuAG4AZQByAEAAZgBlAG4AcgBvAG4ALgBjAG8AbQAAAAAAHwAAAAEAAAAAAJIRAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFAFMAdQBt AG0AYQByAHkASQBuAGYAbwByAG0AYQB0AGkAbwBuAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA KAACAf///////////////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFkAAAAA EAAAAAAAAAUARABvAGMAdQBtAGUAbgB0AFMAdQBtAG0AYQByAHkASQBuAGYAbwByAG0AYQB0AGkA bwBuAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA4AAIBBAAAAP//////////AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAcAAAAAAQAAAAAAAAAQBDAG8AbQBwAE8AYgBqAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABIAAgD///////////////8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAcQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP////////////// /wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA== --Apple-Mail-15--151752537 Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

--Apple-Mail-15--151752537-- --Apple-Mail-14--151752537-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 25 10:16:23 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF7D628C1EF for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:16:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 kwfKXffph3Er for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:16:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14E473A6D65 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:16:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmWiP-000PO0-Ib for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:16:33 +0000 Received: from [2001:41d0:1:a0d6::401:1983] (helo=yop.chewa.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmWiJ-000PMt-IZ for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:16:29 +0000 Received: from leon.remlab.net (unknown [IPv6:2001:df8:0:16:219:d2ff:fe07:5de5]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: remi) by yop.chewa.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62A3F30A for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:16:26 +0100 (CET) From: "=?iso-8859-1?q?R=E9mi?= Denis-Courmont" Organization: Remlab.net To: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: [74attendees] The great emphasis on IPv6 - a positive look Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:16:23 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.11.0 (Linux/2.6.28.8; KDE/4.2.0; i686; ; ) References: <1237854355.16613.46.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <49CA47DF.9080307@free.fr> <8337B887-0196-4433-A11D-73DB09434476@apple.com> In-Reply-To: <8337B887-0196-4433-A11D-73DB09434476@apple.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200903251916.23679.remi@remlab.net> Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Wednesday 25 March 2009 18:05:36 james woodyatt wrote: > [moving discussion into V6OPS from 74attendees] > > On Mar 25, 2009, at 08:03, R=E9mi Despr=E9s wrote: > > RFC 3068 (An Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers) does more harm > > than good. IMHO, it should be deprecated. > > I would support that, providing first that 6RD is A) adopted as a > proposed standard, and B) comes to see more widespread deployment than > 6to4. I also believe the latter is very likely to happen contingent > on the former, so I would vigorously support taking up 6RD as a > working group activity. Anycast 6to4 has problems. I guess Nathan Ward will present some of those. = 6RD=20 solves many of the shortcomings of 6to4, _assuming_the_ISP_deploys_it_. But lest we deprecate the entire scenario of automatic IPv6 setup without I= SP=20 support, I fail to see how 6RD can replace anycast 6to4. =2D-=20 R=E9mi Denis-Courmont From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 25 10:20:39 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 923E83A688F for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:20:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.7 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 1OSufsQdx8OF for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:20:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D6413A6A79 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:20:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmWmK-000PpZ-L0 for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:20:36 +0000 Received: from [2001:41d0:1:a0d6::401:1983] (helo=yop.chewa.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmWm7-000Pni-MF for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:20:29 +0000 Received: from leon.remlab.net (unknown [IPv6:2001:df8:0:16:219:d2ff:fe07:5de5]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: remi) by yop.chewa.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D5E6395; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:20:22 +0100 (CET) From: "=?iso-8859-15?q?R=E9mi?= Denis-Courmont" Organization: Remlab.net To: =?iso-8859-15?q?R=E9mi_Despr=E9s?= Subject: Re: [74attendees] The great emphasis on IPv6 - a positive look Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:20:20 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.11.0 (Linux/2.6.28.8; KDE/4.2.0; i686; ; ) Cc: IPv6 Operations References: <1237854355.16613.46.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <8337B887-0196-4433-A11D-73DB09434476@apple.com> <49CA5940.40700@free.fr> In-Reply-To: <49CA5940.40700@free.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200903251920.20267.remi@remlab.net> Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Wednesday 25 March 2009 18:18:08 R=E9mi Despr=E9s wrote: > james woodyatt - le (m/j/a) 3/25/09 9:05 AM: > > [moving discussion into V6OPS from 74attendees] > > > > On Mar 25, 2009, at 08:03, R=E9mi Despr=E9s wrote: > >> RFC 3068 (An Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers) does more harm > >> than good. IMHO, it should be deprecated. > > > > I would support that, providing first that 6RD is A) adopted as a > > proposed standard, and B) comes to see more widespread deployment than > > 6to4. I also believe the latter is very likely to happen contingent > > on the former, so I would vigorously support taking up 6RD as a > > working group activity. > > Excellent. > > At 4:00 PM today at IETF registration, I will meet Benoit Lourdelet and > Richard Johnson to propose a 6rd DHCP option. > (You are obviously welcome if you would like to join.) A large subset of what I assume are potential target deployments for 6RD do= es=20 NOT use DHCP. PPP(|oA|oE) IPCP comes to mind. Not to mention non-IETF=20 protocols such as PDP. =2D-=20 R=E9mi Denis-Courmont From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 25 10:28:43 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 220113A6BB8 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:28:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.994 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.994 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.499, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 koy7BLGISuLZ for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:28:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A7B93A68AB for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:28:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmWtz-0000e5-0I for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:28:31 +0000 Received: from [17.254.13.23] (helo=mail-out4.apple.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmWtu-0000dQ-5c for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:28:28 +0000 Received: from relay13.apple.com (relay13.apple.com [17.128.113.29]) by mail-out4.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D839F5B78A3E for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:28:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay13.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay13.apple.com (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with ESMTP id BC2192808C for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:28:25 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 1180711d-a7823bb000000ff0-40-49ca69b9bb04 Received: from [17.151.121.35] (unknown [17.151.121.35]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay13.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id 6EE7328088 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:28:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> From: james woodyatt To: IPv6 Operations In-Reply-To: <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:28:25 -0700 References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <0DD150BF-77BC-4527-BD35-9202F94496E0@apple.com> <95F8ED8E-261B-437C-8063-223D345C364B@apple.com> <943C3A80-979F-4289-BA20-C17D20861111@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> <6161A3E1-DCD1-467F-9AD5-0A15821413A2@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Mar 23, 2009, at 18:28, Ole Troan wrote: > > iff you wanted to make ND into a routing protocol using MSRs, I > believe you would have to change RFC4191. and possibly the main ND > spec, as routers doesn't listen to ND. I only see a requirement in RFC 4294 (and draft-ietf-6man-node-req- bis-02) to send RS and process received RA at hosts. There is no language that says routers MUST NOT send RS and process received RA, as draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router describes. You have a point about RFC 4191 perhaps needing to be amended. It describes MSR as a router-to-host protocol and not a router-to-node protocol. This strikes me as an oversight that should be corrected. I see no technical reason that only hosts and not all nodes should be permitted to process MSR messages. -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, communications engineering From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 25 10:48:20 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E5853A6976 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:48:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.112 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.112 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.548, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 2gpbEmomIlQx for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:48:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E6E83A67B4 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:48:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmXCj-0002oh-Ek for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:47:53 +0000 Received: from [80.12.242.46] (helo=smtp21.orange.fr) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmXCb-0002nZ-TI for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 17:47:49 +0000 Received: from dhcp-17b6.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-17b6.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.23.182]) by mwinf2129.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 175271C0009B; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:47:43 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20090325174744956.175271C0009B@mwinf2129.orange.fr Message-ID: <49CA6DC2.1040506@free.fr> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:45:38 -0700 From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?R=E9mi_Despr=E9s?= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?R=E9mi_Denis-Courmont?= CC: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: [74attendees] The great emphasis on IPv6 - a positive look References: <1237854355.16613.46.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <8337B887-0196-4433-A11D-73DB09434476@apple.com> <49CA5940.40700@free.fr> <200903251920.20267.remi@remlab.net> In-Reply-To: <200903251920.20267.remi@remlab.net> Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Rémi Denis-Courmont  -  le (m/j/a) 3/25/09 10:20 AM: 
On Wednesday 25 March 2009 18:18:08 Rémi Després wrote:
  
james woodyatt  -  le (m/j/a) 3/25/09 9:05 AM:
    
[moving discussion into V6OPS from 74attendees]

On Mar 25, 2009, at 08:03, Rémi Després wrote:
      
RFC 3068 (An Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers) does more harm
than good. IMHO, it should be deprecated.
        
I would support that, providing first that 6RD is A) adopted as a
proposed standard, and B) comes to see more widespread deployment than
6to4.  I also believe the latter is very likely to happen contingent
on the former, so I would vigorously support taking up 6RD as a
working group activity.
      
Excellent.

At 4:00 PM today at IETF registration, I will meet Benoit Lourdelet and
Richard Johnson to propose a 6rd DHCP option.
(You are obviously welcome if you would like to join.)
    

A large subset of what I assume are potential target deployments for 6RD does 
NOT use DHCP. PPP(|oA|oE) IPCP comes to mind. Not to mention non-IETF 
protocols such as PDP.
1. It's by mistake that I sent info on the planned meeting on the v6ops list.
Apologies to all for this.

2. IMHO, the fact that other mechanisms than DHCP, PPP etc., may also take advantage of a 6rd option is not a reason why progress on DHCP should be slowed down, right?

Which subset of the potential target one starts with can be considered a minor question.

Regards,

RD

 

From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 25 11:07:20 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 725F628C261 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:07:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.796 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.301, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 636j3TFL+Ffd for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:07:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57B4F28C25A for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:07:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmXU6-0004o6-Od for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:05:50 +0000 Received: from [171.68.10.87] (helo=sj-iport-5.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmXU1-0004ni-QC for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:05:47 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,420,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="68896623" Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Mar 2009 18:05:45 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2PI5iG3029218; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:05:44 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2PI5iDO011355; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:05:44 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.118]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:05:44 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:05:44 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: Acmtb11Jlyf73FasSNqBkrGLNiX46QABMhDQ References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <0DD150BF-77BC-4527-BD35-9202F94496E0@apple.com> <95F8ED8E-261B-437C-8063-223D345C364B@apple.com> <943C3A80-979F-4289-BA20-C17D20861111@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> <6161A3E1-DCD1-467F-9AD5-0A15821413A2@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> From: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" To: "james woodyatt" , "IPv6 Operations" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Mar 2009 18:05:44.0771 (UTC) FILETIME=[513FB130:01C9AD74] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1270; t=1238004344; x=1238868344; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=wbeebee@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Wes=20Beebee=20(wbeebee)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20comm ents |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22james=20woodyatt=22=20,=20=22IPv6= 20Operations=22=20; bh=eMsO9K2IuLT/jJmfp5j7/jl9/xvwgdDsVUqCJGLuIqk=; b=AnYTYpp5OHVPy1gsmWAvae/k4lLrMKD3zY8lYTaS3A9BkuJ4QawtgDfDmI r0rGAIw0qeSGcxfl4oxvEPw0zwwSVC2RfnRqca3yVKds6Y9wEmzeehG7w1Yv sJ5uQQplrr; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=wbeebee@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Where do we say that CPE Routers MUST NOT send RS's? That was certainly not the intent of the draft... - Wes=20 -----Original Message----- From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of james woodyatt Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 1:28 PM To: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments On Mar 23, 2009, at 18:28, Ole Troan wrote: > > iff you wanted to make ND into a routing protocol using MSRs, I=20 > believe you would have to change RFC4191. and possibly the main ND=20 > spec, as routers doesn't listen to ND. I only see a requirement in RFC 4294 (and draft-ietf-6man-node-req- bis-02) to send RS and process received RA at hosts. There is no language that says routers MUST NOT send RS and process received RA, as draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router describes. You have a point about RFC 4191 perhaps needing to be amended. It describes MSR as a router-to-host protocol and not a router-to-node =20 protocol. This strikes me as an oversight that should be corrected. =20 I see no technical reason that only hosts and not all nodes should be permitted to process MSR messages. -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, communications engineering From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 25 11:09:01 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE7623A6822 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:09:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.972 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.972 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.477, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 AIrn4ynmQTNx for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:09:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 192233A6843 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:09:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmXXa-00057C-NR for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:09:26 +0000 Received: from [17.254.13.22] (helo=mail-out3.apple.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmXXV-00056K-5b for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:09:23 +0000 Received: from relay11.apple.com (relay11.apple.com [17.128.113.48]) by mail-out3.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A11658C744B; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:08:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay11.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay11.apple.com (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with ESMTP id 335C028082; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:08:59 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 11807130-ac098bb000000fcd-53-49ca733b8ac2 Received: from [17.151.121.35] (unknown [17.151.121.35]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay11.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id 148A028080; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:08:59 -0700 (PDT) Cc: IPv6 Operations Message-Id: <9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com> From: james woodyatt To: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:08:58 -0700 References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <0DD150BF-77BC-4527-BD35-9202F94496E0@apple.com> <95F8ED8E-261B-437C-8063-223D345C364B@apple.com> <943C3A80-979F-4289-BA20-C17D20861111@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> <6161A3E1-DCD1-467F-9AD5-0A15821413A2@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Mar 25, 2009, at 11:05, Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wrote: > > Where do we say that CPE Routers MUST NOT send RS's? > That was certainly not the intent of the draft... I see how my comment used ambiguous language. I meant to say that A) I do not see how RFC 4294 and draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-02 prohibit CPE routers from sending RSs and processing RAs, and B) I *do* see where draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 calls for CPE routers to do exactly that. -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, communications engineering From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 25 11:11:52 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4DDB3A6839 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:11:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 vpB9FSPSHvet for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:11:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4C553A6ABF for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:11:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmXYx-0005HC-6x for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:10:51 +0000 Received: from [2001:1888:0:1:230:48ff:fe5b:3b50] (helo=outgoing01.lava.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmXYq-0005GS-D2 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:10:46 +0000 Received: from [2001:1888::a:214:51ff:fe29:1e4e] (unknown [IPv6:2001:1888:0:a:214:51ff:fe29:1e4e]) by outgoing01.lava.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49E2BD0510; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:10:41 -1000 (HST) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 08:10:41 -1000 (HST) From: Antonio Querubin To: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" cc: "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" , IPv6 Operations , "Fred Baker (fred)" , james woodyatt Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <215BF73C-7C0D-4DAF-B399-7E812A8FB4A2@cisco.com> <2F30B075-D410-4EDD-A52F-AA9693D30DCA@cisco.com> User-Agent: Alpine 1.00 (OSX 882 2007-12-20) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote: > automatic configuration is possible. Notice for IPv4 standalone home > routers, most routers still need a manual configuration to choose if the > home has a DSL or cable broadband access. Here, both types of access is usually through a modem, not a router. The modem provides the customer with ethernet. If the customer chooses to install a standalone router chained off of the modem, there's really no additional choice to be made. The only choice is whether to go with a cable or DSL access provider. Once that choice is made, the modem type is already determined. > Also, in your DSL deployment, do you have an embedded router in a DSL > modem or is the router a standalone router? An embedded router has lot > more automatic configuration because the L2 of the device can > communicate internally to the embedded CPE Router. That depends on the customer. In the embedded case, conceptually it's simplest to think of the device as having a virtual ethernet connection between built-in modem and built-in router (when the customer chooses to use an embedded router device they normally lose the option to hang additional devices off the WAN link). I'm not aware of any consumer embedded-router/modem being used here where the router functionality behaves significantly differently than that of a standalone-router. The communication between the L2 device and the router really boils down to whether the WAN connection is up or down and that's really independent of whether an embedded router or standalone router is being used. Antonio Querubin whois: AQ7-ARIN From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 25 11:35:25 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90EB73A6D8A for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:35:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.127 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.127 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 RsGqFDGYvTvH for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:35:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACC9F3A6D64 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:35:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmXwI-0008W3-5J for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:34:58 +0000 Received: from [209.85.134.188] (helo=mu-out-0910.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmXwB-0008Ui-0o for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:34:54 +0000 Received: by mu-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id g7so82726muf.1 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:34:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=d/maXfJg5PabDyrU/LscpqeH3mgaBLo8l8/N9c682GY=; b=PWkzLq8oAvW3euZ1Le94jUVlWA74BqLWvnBaFTTWN0ZA6CZtqEz7XppBbzVkCLcrOz sSq/dJ55XPrIfizptuDtPq8pVyF9cAj1LBdp3sc/9syAX4akD0VGrst7RByCfPRdqZY0 ORAQ3rBdjMpqQmKRlKJkNTpfSQwYoWUd4c18E= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=mCHHYx/9bWYqZ9id6LFJdm0ULNRBj5yZq2oZe30y/7k3mZ1rsALQZF9cfVqhkSKvnP 2mdML/+2zM5lODTzdfVHlTfPb155hoy2NtTAOvShcFoAXRpjDa9F1udoepioSaoCXLMS em9L7TfdQ06Ic3i69A+RR+e1ogdzdlJxK5DGo= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.103.102.17 with SMTP id e17mr4317993mum.119.1238006089299; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:34:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <95F8ED8E-261B-437C-8063-223D345C364B@apple.com> <943C3A80-979F-4289-BA20-C17D20861111@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> <6161A3E1-DCD1-467F-9AD5-0A15821413A2@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:34:49 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 7c5799230e371327 Message-ID: <2bbba3c10903251134w110ba31ay2b42243ba5565a91@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments From: Ole Troan To: james woodyatt Cc: IPv6 Operations Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: >> iff you wanted to make ND into a routing protocol using MSRs, I believe >> you would have to change RFC4191. and possibly the main ND spec, as rout= ers >> doesn't listen to ND. > > I only see a requirement in RFC 4294 (and draft-ietf-6man-node-req-bis-02= ) > to send RS and process received RA at hosts. =A0There is no language that= says > routers MUST NOT send RS and process received RA, as > draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router describes. routers don't send RSs hosts do. but I agree to the extent that the host/router property is per-interface. and the distinction becoming more blurred by the day in any case. > You have a point about RFC 4191 perhaps needing to be amended. =A0It desc= ribes > MSR as a router-to-host protocol and not a router-to-node protocol. =A0Th= is > strikes me as an oversight that should be corrected. =A0I see no technica= l > reason that only hosts and not all nodes should be permitted to process M= SR > messages. this was something which was touched upon by Ralph's presentation in the rtgarea meeting. I think this needs more consideration and include a wider audience; should we make DHCP and ND into routing protocols? btw, from RFC4861, section 6.2.7: "...Any other action on reception of Router Advertisement messages by a router is beyond the scope of this document." Ole From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 25 12:30:02 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76AA53A6BB6 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:30:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.204 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.204 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.456, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 Gamw6tZilAzf for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:30:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ACE13A6BA5 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:30:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmYl9-000DIL-Cg for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:27:31 +0000 Received: from [80.12.242.47] (helo=smtp21.orange.fr) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmYl2-000DHD-HV for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:27:27 +0000 Received: from dhcp-17b6.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-17b6.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.23.182]) by mwinf2112.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id EAF561C0008A; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:27:22 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20090325192722962.EAF561C0008A@mwinf2112.orange.fr Message-ID: <49CA851B.2070005@free.fr> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:25:15 -0700 From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?R=E9mi_Despr=E9s?= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?R=E9mi_Denis-Courmont?= CC: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: [74attendees] The great emphasis on IPv6 - a positive look References: <1237854355.16613.46.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <49CA47DF.9080307@free.fr> <8337B887-0196-4433-A11D-73DB09434476@apple.com> <200903251916.23679.remi@remlab.net> In-Reply-To: <200903251916.23679.remi@remlab.net> Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Rémi Denis-Courmont  -  le (m/j/a) 3/25/09 10:16 AM: 
On Wednesday 25 March 2009 18:05:36 james woodyatt wrote:
  
[moving discussion into V6OPS from 74attendees]

On Mar 25, 2009, at 08:03, Rémi Després wrote:
    
RFC 3068 (An Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers) does more harm
than good. IMHO, it should be deprecated.
      
I would support that, providing first that 6RD is A) adopted as a
proposed standard, and B) comes to see more widespread deployment than
6to4.  I also believe the latter is very likely to happen contingent
on the former, so I would vigorously support taking up 6RD as a
working group activity.
    

Anycast 6to4 has problems. I guess Nathan Ward will present some of those. 6RD 
solves many of the shortcomings of 6to4, _assuming_the_ISP_deploys_it_.

But lest we deprecate the entire scenario of automatic IPv6 setup without ISP 
support, I fail to see how 6RD can replace anycast 6to4.
Thanks for your comment.

Using 6to4 between two 6to4 user sites is NOT a problem, and indeed MUST remain possible.
But using a source 6to4 address to reach a non-6to4 destination IS a problem, and IMHO MUST be deprecated ASAP.

6to4 to non-6to4 being the only reason for 6to4 relay routers, and for the 6to4 anycast address to reach them, they are what needs being deprecated.

I guess RFC 3484 should also be updated to say that a 6to4 address MAY be used if both source and destination are 6to4, but ONLY in this case.

Regards,

RD
 

From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 25 12:47:16 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 605383A6D81 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:47:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.857 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.857 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.362, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 VKW8gaGd-YgZ for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:47:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5ADEB3A688A for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:47:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmZ3k-000Ev5-0c for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:46:44 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.71] (helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmZ3V-000Eta-O9 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:46:39 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,420,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="146600225" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Mar 2009 19:46:29 +0000 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2PJkTMR005890; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:46:29 -0700 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2PJk8kg024953; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 19:46:29 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.40]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:46:28 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:46:27 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: AcmtdQCKvvbE/rTTRkeQiWpkVEgFlwADH+Yw References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <0DD150BF-77BC-4527-BD35-9202F94496E0@apple.com> <95F8ED8E-261B-437C-8063-223D345C364B@apple.com> <943C3A80-979F-4289-BA20-C17D20861111@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> <6161A3E1-DCD1-467F-9AD5-0A15821413A2@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> <9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com> From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" To: "james woodyatt" , "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" Cc: "IPv6 Operations" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Mar 2009 19:46:28.0620 (UTC) FILETIME=[63A9DCC0:01C9AD82] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1057; t=1238010389; x=1238874389; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20comm ents |Sender:=20; bh=n1LO7Tc7UR6v6BMTJUegJZ2Pn8jQ/OjS27+LFtX9aIc=; b=LZU0Tc833clPbxkevatGxFL9Pn8pY8ncnA8Zkgj2kToadjVswndpUxN5Zg MPuqFTXMtREGbHzRKvmbjjd3ILSeIYv/kcWlggqPX/W1NiB9d4mtfgboODxV sPD+7M5bwM; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=shemant@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: James, I already replied to your RS question on March 23. Ole has also kindly jumped in later too and gave you an explanation in this regard. Here is what I said on 03/23. From this text it should be crystal clear why a router's network interface is legal to send an RS and also by sending the RS, the CPE Rtr's network interface is not non-compliant to any IPv6 node req document. "When a network interface on any router inits itself and performs any "address acquisition", the network interface of the router is acting as a host. According to RFC 4861, section 4.1, the text says that hosts send RS to solicit an RA quickly." The only recent item to debate from you is now RFC 4191. Again, on this front Ole articulated it very nicely and I agree with him. If one has routing, why do we want RFC 4191 in the CPE Rtr document? I have also asked in the past to please give us one compelling reason to make RFC 4191 get into the CPE Rtr document. What particular option from RFC 4191 do you want to use by the CPE Rtr? Hemant From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 25 13:07:19 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D59D53A6DA9 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:07:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.301 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.806, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 Q6Zhne8bbrM5 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:07:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D53503A6DA2 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:07:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmZN5-000GgP-BE for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:06:43 +0000 Received: from [130.76.96.56] (helo=stl-smtpout-01.boeing.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmZMz-000Gfo-B0 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:06:39 +0000 Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com (stl-av-01.boeing.com [192.76.190.6]) by stl-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/8.14.0/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id n2PK6TJo024777 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:06:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: from stl-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id n2PK6Tpr001554; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:06:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: from XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwbh-11.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.55.84]) by stl-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id n2PK6F5i001270; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:06:29 -0500 (CDT) Received: from XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.54.35]) by XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:06:28 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: draft-jiang-incremental-CGN (was: RE: Agenda) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:06:27 -0700 Message-ID: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A105BB4F70@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> In-Reply-To: <001901c9a832$07c4d0e0$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-jiang-incremental-CGN (was: RE: Agenda) Thread-Index: AcmoKFoRixTTL9nuTWiuFkpqxRnWuAACOMWAAVTYxNA= References: <9D55B7AB-196E-4D31-9C26-66FC7E8447FE@cisco.com> <001901c9a832$07c4d0e0$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> From: "Templin, Fred L" To: "Sheng Jiang" , "Fred Baker" , "IPv6 Operations" Cc: "Brian E Carpenter" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Mar 2009 20:06:28.0627 (UTC) FILETIME=[2EEC6630:01C9AD85] Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Had intended to say this at the mike, but I would like to see this work taken as a wg item. Reason is that I see a continued need for IPv4 clients to access IPv4 and IPv6 servers. Can we have this as a wg item? Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Sheng Jiang [mailto:shengjiang@huawei.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:29 PM > To: 'Fred Baker'; 'IPv6 Operations' > Cc: 'Brian E Carpenter' > Subject: RE: Agenda >=20 > Hi, Fred, >=20 > Could you add Brian Carpenter as co-author and presenter for the following agenda > item? Due to a known bug of auto-submission tool, Brian's name does not recognized. >=20 > An Incremental Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) for IPv6 Transition > Sheng Jiang, Dayong Guo, Brian Carpenter >=20 > Many thanks and best regards, >=20 > Sheng >=20 > >-----Original Message----- > >From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org > >[mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker > >Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 7:55 AM > >To: IPv6 Operations > >Subject: Agenda > > > >So I am finally posting the agenda for our meetings next week. > >I'll blame the delay on the late posting of drafts. Or > >something like that :-) > > > > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/agenda/v6ops.html > > > >I need all of the presentations that people plan to use, > >whether in PDF or PPT format, by Sunday night so I can post > >them, please. We will run them from my laptop. > > > >Presenters, some of you have told me you only need ten > >minutes, and I'll be hoping you do that. I asked for two > >2-hour sessions and got one 2.5 hour and one 1 hour session. > >There is at least one discussion that I expect to warrant some > >extra time, and what we have is about 20 minutes each. > > >=20 From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 25 13:33:39 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EF8D3A6888 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:33:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.38 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.38 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.885, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 baaTtkCQ-Qa2 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:33:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0084D3A67ED for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:33:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmZlQ-000JIj-Rv for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:31:52 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.72] (helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmZlK-000JI6-Se for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:31:49 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,421,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="146749634" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Mar 2009 20:31:46 +0000 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2PKVkXF023629; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:31:46 -0700 Received: from dhcp-56c8.meeting.ietf.org (sjc-vpn4-1211.cisco.com [10.21.84.186]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2PKVj0H016141; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:31:46 GMT Cc: "Sheng Jiang" , "IPv6 Operations" , "Brian E Carpenter" Message-Id: <82AEA9EB-9437-406F-BC3A-5F0895BE6FD6@cisco.com> From: Fred Baker To: "Templin, Fred L" In-Reply-To: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A105BB4F70@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: draft-jiang-incremental-CGN (was: RE: Agenda) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:31:45 -0700 References: <9D55B7AB-196E-4D31-9C26-66FC7E8447FE@cisco.com> <001901c9a832$07c4d0e0$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A105BB4F70@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2152; t=1238013106; x=1238877106; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20draft-jiang-incremental-CGN=20(was=3A=2 0RE=3A=20Agenda) |Sender:=20; bh=oDBMg+fB7gTPj+qcPFsijnyYhUGmRB4CpGx0nNCch2A=; b=ThTxH79o9eEKRoLCAPZoD6/yzxoHINm1pGPZ7GEDFHzyQG89ffGq0bK69V xzt2xi0GvGrfr+BvnaXbpS+e/Yy2wc49mMQVsmXCotbbUy8h1t4q0X6tIblh uAp0dFsmWD; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: As I noted a few minutes ago regarding 6rd, and as we discussed when you wanted ISATAP picked up as a working group item, the charter precludes transition mechanisms as working group topics. You need to discuss this with an AD or an appropriate working group. On Mar 25, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote: > Had intended to say this at the mike, but I would like > to see this work taken as a wg item. Reason is that I > see a continued need for IPv4 clients to access IPv4 > and IPv6 servers. Can we have this as a wg item? > > Fred > fred.l.templin@boeing.com > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sheng Jiang [mailto:shengjiang@huawei.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:29 PM >> To: 'Fred Baker'; 'IPv6 Operations' >> Cc: 'Brian E Carpenter' >> Subject: RE: Agenda >> >> Hi, Fred, >> >> Could you add Brian Carpenter as co-author and presenter for the > following agenda >> item? Due to a known bug of auto-submission tool, Brian's name does > not recognized. >> >> An Incremental Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) for IPv6 Transition >> Sheng Jiang, Dayong Guo, Brian Carpenter >> >> Many thanks and best regards, >> >> Sheng >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org >>> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker >>> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 7:55 AM >>> To: IPv6 Operations >>> Subject: Agenda >>> >>> So I am finally posting the agenda for our meetings next week. >>> I'll blame the delay on the late posting of drafts. Or >>> something like that :-) >>> >>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/agenda/v6ops.html >>> >>> I need all of the presentations that people plan to use, >>> whether in PDF or PPT format, by Sunday night so I can post >>> them, please. We will run them from my laptop. >>> >>> Presenters, some of you have told me you only need ten >>> minutes, and I'll be hoping you do that. I asked for two >>> 2-hour sessions and got one 2.5 hour and one 1 hour session. >>> There is at least one discussion that I expect to warrant some >>> extra time, and what we have is about 20 minutes each. >>> >> > From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 25 13:36:21 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9D8E3A6997 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:36:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.265 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.770, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 5U+YPIwZhhhO for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:36:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7B563A67ED for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:36:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmZq9-000JnB-EJ for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:36:45 +0000 Received: from [130.76.96.56] (helo=stl-smtpout-01.boeing.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmZq3-000JmN-NJ for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:36:42 +0000 Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com (blv-av-01.boeing.com [130.247.48.231]) by stl-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/8.14.0/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id n2PKaEfL012175 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:36:15 -0500 (CDT) Received: from blv-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id n2PKaEWo008235; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:36:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwbh-11.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.55.84]) by blv-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id n2PKaBNB008094; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:36:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.54.35]) by XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:36:14 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: draft-jiang-incremental-CGN (was: RE: Agenda) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:36:12 -0700 Message-ID: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A105BB4FCC@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> In-Reply-To: <82AEA9EB-9437-406F-BC3A-5F0895BE6FD6@cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-jiang-incremental-CGN (was: RE: Agenda) Thread-Index: AcmtiLlErN6zGeqJSdiElG+NF5AGSgAAEkGA References: <9D55B7AB-196E-4D31-9C26-66FC7E8447FE@cisco.com> <001901c9a832$07c4d0e0$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A105BB4F70@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> <82AEA9EB-9437-406F-BC3A-5F0895BE6FD6@cisco.com> From: "Templin, Fred L" To: "Fred Baker" Cc: "Sheng Jiang" , "IPv6 Operations" , "Brian E Carpenter" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Mar 2009 20:36:14.0083 (UTC) FILETIME=[57235D30:01C9AD89] Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Fred, Maybe I am confused; the chairs asked a question after the draft presentation, and I missed the boat on raising my hand. What was the question that was asked - and is it too late to still raise my hand? Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@cisco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 1:32 PM > To: Templin, Fred L > Cc: Sheng Jiang; IPv6 Operations; Brian E Carpenter > Subject: Re: draft-jiang-incremental-CGN (was: RE: Agenda) >=20 > As I noted a few minutes ago regarding 6rd, and as we discussed when > you wanted ISATAP picked up as a working group item, the charter > precludes transition mechanisms as working group topics. You need to > discuss this with an AD or an appropriate working group. >=20 > On Mar 25, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote: >=20 > > Had intended to say this at the mike, but I would like > > to see this work taken as a wg item. Reason is that I > > see a continued need for IPv4 clients to access IPv4 > > and IPv6 servers. Can we have this as a wg item? > > > > Fred > > fred.l.templin@boeing.com > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Sheng Jiang [mailto:shengjiang@huawei.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:29 PM > >> To: 'Fred Baker'; 'IPv6 Operations' > >> Cc: 'Brian E Carpenter' > >> Subject: RE: Agenda > >> > >> Hi, Fred, > >> > >> Could you add Brian Carpenter as co-author and presenter for the > > following agenda > >> item? Due to a known bug of auto-submission tool, Brian's name does > > not recognized. > >> > >> An Incremental Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) for IPv6 Transition > >> Sheng Jiang, Dayong Guo, Brian Carpenter > >> > >> Many thanks and best regards, > >> > >> Sheng > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org > >>> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker > >>> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 7:55 AM > >>> To: IPv6 Operations > >>> Subject: Agenda > >>> > >>> So I am finally posting the agenda for our meetings next week. > >>> I'll blame the delay on the late posting of drafts. Or > >>> something like that :-) > >>> > >>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/agenda/v6ops.html > >>> > >>> I need all of the presentations that people plan to use, > >>> whether in PDF or PPT format, by Sunday night so I can post > >>> them, please. We will run them from my laptop. > >>> > >>> Presenters, some of you have told me you only need ten > >>> minutes, and I'll be hoping you do that. I asked for two > >>> 2-hour sessions and got one 2.5 hour and one 1 hour session. > >>> There is at least one discussion that I expect to warrant some > >>> extra time, and what we have is about 20 minutes each. > >>> > >> > > From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 25 13:42:08 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83C343A6997 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:42:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -101.843 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.843 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.143, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 utbDiMJUE-w2 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:42:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1E3D3A6D71 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:42:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmZvM-000KUj-49 for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:42:08 +0000 Received: from [2001:41d0:1:a0d6::401:1983] (helo=yop.chewa.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmZvG-000KUB-GQ for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:42:05 +0000 Received: from leon.remlab.net (unknown [IPv6:2001:df8:0:16:219:d2ff:fe07:5de5]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: remi) by yop.chewa.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C926A30A for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:42:00 +0100 (CET) From: "=?iso-8859-15?q?R=E9mi?= Denis-Courmont" Organization: Remlab.net To: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: [74attendees] The great emphasis on IPv6 - a positive look Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:41:57 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.11.0 (Linux/2.6.28.9; KDE/4.2.0; i686; ; ) References: <1237854355.16613.46.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <200903251916.23679.remi@remlab.net> <49CA851B.2070005@free.fr> In-Reply-To: <49CA851B.2070005@free.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200903252241.57649.remi@remlab.net> Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Wednesday 25 March 2009 21:25:15 R=E9mi Despr=E9s wrote: > =2E.. > Using 6to4 between two 6to4 user sites is NOT a problem, and indeed > MUST remain possible.
> But using a source 6to4 address to reach a non-6to4 destination IS a > problem, and IMHO MUST be deprecated ASAP.
I am using Anycast 6to4 at home and it worksforme(tm). Who is going to be m= y=20 6RD endpoint when 6to4 is deprecated? My ISP does not provide 6RD. I don't= =20 know if ny DOCSIS modem is compatible with 6RD, and I know for sure that my= =20 CPE does not implement 6RD. 6RD is NOT an alternative to 6to4. 6RD is an alternative to native IPv6 for= =20 access networks. To put it another way, 6to4 is deployed by end sites, wher= eas =20 6RD is deployed by access providers. Also IMHO, splitting the IPv6 Internet is a worse idea than keeping 6to4. >
> 6to4 to non-6to4 being the only reason for 6to4 relay routers, and for > the 6to4 anycast address to reach them, they are what needs being > deprecated.
>
> I guess RFC 3484 should also be updated to say that a 6to4 address MAY > be used if both source and destination are 6to4, but ONLY in this case. I do not believe we can update the millions of RFC3484-capable nodes in the= =20 wold, in the expected time frame for 6to4. =2D-=20 R=E9mi Denis-Courmont From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 25 14:25:01 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D21728C0D6 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:25:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.995 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.995 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 TCeWyOS0bIc7 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:25:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C3903A6ACF for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:25:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmaZZ-000OLy-0k for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:23:41 +0000 Received: from [209.85.200.169] (helo=wf-out-1314.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmaZT-000OLe-Tl for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:23:38 +0000 Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 28so237927wfc.32 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:23:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tx670lKTIwHlZJYeggKPUAJHYeQFRh26A/jtJxg/0ik=; b=sgqI4l1ZaTPlUF6BvsVs4OlAdarFQM3wY5fRUr3yaIE1XNQiYhbD3gD6v9VTuXn84b Ij/0iyPu44s7nkpnqGnL+UaTytN+w5uOdUWEn76fBFkDx1VLN/4KsmMNFgTSdXfuIaa/ nwq3P2Ty4nNgZfCmLcg3eW3sWr6ZyDBkPlscY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=mBIhTrRQDF2N0k4geGBqrMsGT06y1d68WfyLD4XgwRD4wFtLOBlz0Em8k912aoHRa3 VsTTTrmDC0gbrSbkZZeCT+WndwOGSZ9cF9tWhwbH93OdmvLCO+ZxnODOqB/WKtrWrdty jOyv/VPxu44pQ1tNWfjXPNqNv2pq/NaHbLDJk= Received: by 10.142.245.5 with SMTP id s5mr13398wfh.198.1238016215056; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:23:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?130.129.18.229? (dhcp-12e5.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.18.229]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 22sm16596231wfg.43.2009.03.25.14.23.33 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:23:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49CAA0D0.4090604@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:23:28 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?UsOpbWkgRGVzcHLDqXM=?= CC: =?UTF-8?B?UsOpbWkgRGVuaXMtQ291cm1vbnQ=?= , IPv6 Operations Subject: 6to4 to non-6to4 References: <1237854355.16613.46.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <49CA47DF.9080307@free.fr> <8337B887-0196-4433-A11D-73DB09434476@apple.com> <200903251916.23679.remi@remlab.net> <49CA851B.2070005@free.fr> In-Reply-To: <49CA851B.2070005@free.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On 2009-03-26 08:25, R=C3=A9mi Despr=C3=A9s wrote: > R=C3=A9mi Denis-Courmont - le (m/j/a) 3/25/09 10:16 AM: >> On Wednesday 25 March 2009 18:05:36 james woodyatt wrote: >> =20 >>> [moving discussion into V6OPS from 74attendees] >>> >>> On Mar 25, 2009, at 08:03, R=C3=A9mi Despr=C3=A9s wrote: >>> =20 >>>> RFC 3068 (An Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers) does more harm >>>> than good. IMHO, it should be deprecated. >>>> =20 >>> I would support that, providing first that 6RD is A) adopted as a >>> proposed standard, and B) comes to see more widespread deployment tha= n >>> 6to4. I also believe the latter is very likely to happen contingent >>> on the former, so I would vigorously support taking up 6RD as a >>> working group activity. >>> =20 >> >> Anycast 6to4 has problems. I guess Nathan Ward will present some of th= ose. 6RD=20 >> solves many of the shortcomings of 6to4, _assuming_the_ISP_deploys_it_= =2E >> >> But lest we deprecate the entire scenario of automatic IPv6 setup with= out ISP=20 >> support, I fail to see how 6RD can replace anycast 6to4. >> =20 > Thanks for your comment. >=20 > Using 6to4 between two 6to4 user sites is NOT a problem, and indeed MUS= T remain=20 > possible. > But using a source 6to4 address to reach a non-6to4 destination IS a pr= oblem,=20 > and IMHO MUST be deprecated ASAP. I'm sorry but this makes no sense. 6to4 users (they exist) need to reach the IPv6 Internet, and a 6to4 relay is the only way to do that, so they have to exist too. Otherwise we are creating IPv6 islands, which is a bad idea for encouraging adoption. The fact that the anycast technique leads to black holes is well known; I've been a victim of it myself. I'd be much happier if 6to4 had been deployed as described in RFC3056, but we have to deal with reality. Once again, see draft-nward-6to4-qualification for one way to do that. >=20 > 6to4 to non-6to4 being the only reason for 6to4 relay routers, and for = the 6to4=20 > anycast address to reach them, they are what needs being deprecated. >=20 > I guess RFC 3484 should also be updated to say that a 6to4 address MAY = be used=20 > if both source and destination are 6to4, but ONLY in this case. Absolutely not. That would make the black hole problem global instead of localised. 6to4 was given its own /8 global prefix so that longest match would do the right thing, within the scope of the 3484 rules. (Yes, 3484 was published after 3056, but there was coordination.) Brian From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 25 14:30:48 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51E6728C17F for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:30:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.784 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.784 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.489, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 0MpWFlB9DEUN for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:30:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06D2D28C197 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:30:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmagA-000Ow7-Da for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:30:30 +0000 Received: from [209.85.217.161] (helo=mail-gx0-f161.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lmag4-000OvT-EW for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:30:27 +0000 Received: by gxk5 with SMTP id 5so592738gxk.17 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:30:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=84M5HMm2ioHLbIDNlmPoSkNAKvEBIDPplHcrLiuF20Q=; b=l4aIYC++q9itwZqsNf0qXY0qrrt919sV8sOvN4JIDYApV8WxZQPgyDpknJwmdaMTAn qvZkvb0Mz4xysKumm1OQmvAoQhc4Ep1SQtGXeDfwMi8TplFB6IJO0DXO9CIEwIiyeqEm af1ESiufi5XxvU+MbsfsAMh1mFkw2nlqZ/8eM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=hX7k9tYvbSmg3GqHgpm2CBHtijFLUOU+ledv7OAFrfkBfoRE2dpFE2/ZL1r3RV98r+ nxJB29fTwNFg98oasUhYKG9pvIgv+0gHVQWQWcn8oSNzENbiaw6tL76+Kld69b3EmkJI v0R2cYAVydk6eMkTMjf9LRwB0338LEAxAdC34= Received: by 10.143.5.21 with SMTP id h21mr17088wfi.180.1238016622770; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:30:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?130.129.18.229? (dhcp-12e5.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.18.229]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 30sm12525547wfa.58.2009.03.25.14.30.21 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:30:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49CAA268.6030102@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:30:16 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Templin, Fred L" CC: Fred Baker , Sheng Jiang , IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: draft-jiang-incremental-CGN References: <9D55B7AB-196E-4D31-9C26-66FC7E8447FE@cisco.com> <001901c9a832$07c4d0e0$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A105BB4F70@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> <82AEA9EB-9437-406F-BC3A-5F0895BE6FD6@cisco.com> <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A105BB4FCC@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> In-Reply-To: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A105BB4FCC@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: There'll be another draft (so tech comments will be most welcome). Before we ship that draft, we'l check with the various ADs and WG chairs whether we should direct it at a particular WG, or as an individual submission. I would observe that this is actually a usage scenario; we were fairly careful not to invent any new mechanisms as such. The v6ops charter does include: "4. Publish Informational or BCP RFCs that identify and analyze solutions for deploying IPv6 within common network environments, such as ISP Networks,..." Brian On 2009-03-26 09:36, Templin, Fred L wrote: > Fred, > > Maybe I am confused; the chairs asked a question after > the draft presentation, and I missed the boat on raising > my hand. What was the question that was asked - and is > it too late to still raise my hand? > > Fred > fred.l.templin@boeing.com > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@cisco.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 1:32 PM >> To: Templin, Fred L >> Cc: Sheng Jiang; IPv6 Operations; Brian E Carpenter >> Subject: Re: draft-jiang-incremental-CGN (was: RE: Agenda) >> >> As I noted a few minutes ago regarding 6rd, and as we discussed when >> you wanted ISATAP picked up as a working group item, the charter >> precludes transition mechanisms as working group topics. You need to >> discuss this with an AD or an appropriate working group. >> >> On Mar 25, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote: >> >>> Had intended to say this at the mike, but I would like >>> to see this work taken as a wg item. Reason is that I >>> see a continued need for IPv4 clients to access IPv4 >>> and IPv6 servers. Can we have this as a wg item? >>> >>> Fred >>> fred.l.templin@boeing.com >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Sheng Jiang [mailto:shengjiang@huawei.com] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:29 PM >>>> To: 'Fred Baker'; 'IPv6 Operations' >>>> Cc: 'Brian E Carpenter' >>>> Subject: RE: Agenda >>>> >>>> Hi, Fred, >>>> >>>> Could you add Brian Carpenter as co-author and presenter for the >>> following agenda >>>> item? Due to a known bug of auto-submission tool, Brian's name does >>> not recognized. >>>> An Incremental Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) for IPv6 Transition >>>> Sheng Jiang, Dayong Guo, Brian Carpenter >>>> >>>> Many thanks and best regards, >>>> >>>> Sheng >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org >>>>> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker >>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 7:55 AM >>>>> To: IPv6 Operations >>>>> Subject: Agenda >>>>> >>>>> So I am finally posting the agenda for our meetings next week. >>>>> I'll blame the delay on the late posting of drafts. Or >>>>> something like that :-) >>>>> >>>>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/agenda/v6ops.html >>>>> >>>>> I need all of the presentations that people plan to use, >>>>> whether in PDF or PPT format, by Sunday night so I can post >>>>> them, please. We will run them from my laptop. >>>>> >>>>> Presenters, some of you have told me you only need ten >>>>> minutes, and I'll be hoping you do that. I asked for two >>>>> 2-hour sessions and got one 2.5 hour and one 1 hour session. >>>>> There is at least one discussion that I expect to warrant some >>>>> extra time, and what we have is about 20 minutes each. >>>>> > > From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 25 15:05:34 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 608F628C195 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:05:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.269 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.269 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.391, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 9ESnIU3veQkS for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:05:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D5B828C171 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:05:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmbCG-00020D-86 for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:03:40 +0000 Received: from [80.12.242.26] (helo=smtp20.orange.fr) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmbC9-0001zh-Rx for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:03:37 +0000 Received: from dhcp-17b6.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-17b6.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.23.182]) by mwinf2027.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 2B3CB20000A6; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:03:28 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20090325220328177.2B3CB20000A6@mwinf2027.orange.fr Message-ID: <49CAA9B1.7070302@free.fr> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:01:21 -0700 From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?R=E9mi_Despr=E9s?= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Brian E Carpenter CC: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?R=E9mi_Denis-Courmont?= , IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: 6to4 to non-6to4 References: <1237854355.16613.46.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <49CA47DF.9080307@free.fr> <8337B887-0196-4433-A11D-73DB09434476@apple.com> <200903251916.23679.remi@remlab.net> <49CA851B.2070005@free.fr> <49CAA0D0.4090604@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <49CAA0D0.4090604@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Brian E Carpenter  -  le (m/j/a) 3/25/09 2:23 PM: 
On 2009-03-26 08:25, Rémi Després wrote:
  
Rémi Denis-Courmont  -  le (m/j/a) 3/25/09 10:16 AM:
    
On Wednesday 25 March 2009 18:05:36 james woodyatt wrote:
  
      
[moving discussion into V6OPS from 74attendees]

On Mar 25, 2009, at 08:03, Rémi Després wrote:
    
        
RFC 3068 (An Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers) does more harm
than good. IMHO, it should be deprecated.
      
          
I would support that, providing first that 6RD is A) adopted as a
proposed standard, and B) comes to see more widespread deployment than
6to4.  I also believe the latter is very likely to happen contingent
on the former, so I would vigorously support taking up 6RD as a
working group activity.
    
        
Anycast 6to4 has problems. I guess Nathan Ward will present some of those. 6RD 
solves many of the shortcomings of 6to4, _assuming_the_ISP_deploys_it_.

But lest we deprecate the entire scenario of automatic IPv6 setup without ISP 
support, I fail to see how 6RD can replace anycast 6to4.
  
      
Thanks for your comment.

Using 6to4 between two 6to4 user sites is NOT a problem, and indeed MUST remain 
possible.
But using a source 6to4 address to reach a non-6to4 destination IS a problem, 
and IMHO MUST be deprecated ASAP.
    

I'm sorry but this makes no sense. 6to4 users (they exist) need to
reach the IPv6 Internet, and a 6to4 relay is the only way to do that,
so they have to exist too. Otherwise we are creating IPv6 islands, which
is a bad idea for encouraging adoption.

The fact that the anycast technique leads to black holes is well known;
I've been a victim of it myself. I'd be much happier if 6to4 had been
deployed as described in RFC3056, but we have to deal with reality.
Once again, see draft-nward-6to4-qualification for one way to
do that.
Agreed (a partial backtrack): if a 6to4 host first checks that it has a return path from a native v6 site, then it may proceed rather than giving up v6 and falling back to v4.

Note however that, for still some time, falling back to v4 when the quality of v6 paths is not guaranteed is not a bad choice.
Note also that Nathan's proposal checks only connectivity. Uncertainty on QoS remains, due to the lack of control on which 6to4 relay routers are used in return paths. 

6to4 to non-6to4 being the only reason for 6to4 relay routers, and for the 6to4 
anycast address to reach them, they are what needs being deprecated.

I guess RFC 3484 should also be updated to say that a 6to4 address MAY be used 
if both source and destination are 6to4, but ONLY in this case.
    

Absolutely not. That would make the black hole problem global instead of
localised.
In my understanding, backing up to v4 when v6 is not fully reliable doesn't create  black holes. It prevents them.
At least where 6to4 qualification is not available yet (and substantial host modifications don't come overnight), avoiding 6to4 to non-6to4 remains IMHO a good way to avoid people to be disappointed with IPv6 and complain.

Regards,

RD
From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 25 15:23:47 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E5B13A6B55 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:23:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.364 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.364 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.869, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 iLo3nlPyR8+b for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:23:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCDD33A6C1D for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:23:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmbVG-0003q4-T0 for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:23:18 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.71] (helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmbVB-0003pe-2E for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:23:16 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,422,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="146685884" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Mar 2009 22:23:12 +0000 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2PMNCsP026085; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:23:12 -0700 Received: from dhcp-56c8.meeting.ietf.org (sjc-vpn3-779.cisco.com [10.21.67.11]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2PMNCTW013623; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:23:12 GMT Cc: "Sheng Jiang" , "IPv6 Operations" , "Brian E Carpenter" Message-Id: <98435D1F-4229-4506-A243-19A2C885F035@cisco.com> From: Fred Baker To: "Templin, Fred L" In-Reply-To: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A105BB4FCC@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: draft-jiang-incremental-CGN (was: RE: Agenda) Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:23:12 -0700 References: <9D55B7AB-196E-4D31-9C26-66FC7E8447FE@cisco.com> <001901c9a832$07c4d0e0$db0c6f0a@china.huawei.com> <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A105BB4F70@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> <82AEA9EB-9437-406F-BC3A-5F0895BE6FD6@cisco.com> <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A105BB4FCC@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=3448; t=1238019792; x=1238883792; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20draft-jiang-incremental-CGN=20(was=3A=2 0RE=3A=20Agenda) |Sender:=20; bh=Cc1rtA0YLUdaWd+ph7GA0J24y1BzTVo3z1+tzACrG88=; b=H0WwVta4rZwhXqv9llTJ1OtKRXCnK0stiVQTjPdq7/TVnMikDbwb07l7Dq 4zIxWfPlwOs/9H10sXd5koSzwHvYN3yNLxwogzQFHgiMOsJgaXrpT51wjuG8 N4VuX+0weh; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: I asked Gunter to send me his notes. Per them, I asked the working group what should be done with the draft, and found that few had read it. So I encouraged people to read it and comment to the list. If it is adopted in an IETF working group, it will have to be in one that is chartered to work on transition mechanisms; note that behave and softwires are already working on these, and 6rd is being taken to softwires as an alternative tunneling approach. After we have comments on this draft, we will be an in better position to discuss its next steps. On Mar 25, 2009, at 1:36 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote: > Fred, > > Maybe I am confused; the chairs asked a question after > the draft presentation, and I missed the boat on raising > my hand. What was the question that was asked - and is > it too late to still raise my hand? > > Fred > fred.l.templin@boeing.com > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Fred Baker [mailto:fred@cisco.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 1:32 PM >> To: Templin, Fred L >> Cc: Sheng Jiang; IPv6 Operations; Brian E Carpenter >> Subject: Re: draft-jiang-incremental-CGN (was: RE: Agenda) >> >> As I noted a few minutes ago regarding 6rd, and as we discussed when >> you wanted ISATAP picked up as a working group item, the charter >> precludes transition mechanisms as working group topics. You need to >> discuss this with an AD or an appropriate working group. >> >> On Mar 25, 2009, at 1:06 PM, Templin, Fred L wrote: >> >>> Had intended to say this at the mike, but I would like >>> to see this work taken as a wg item. Reason is that I >>> see a continued need for IPv4 clients to access IPv4 >>> and IPv6 servers. Can we have this as a wg item? >>> >>> Fred >>> fred.l.templin@boeing.com >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Sheng Jiang [mailto:shengjiang@huawei.com] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:29 PM >>>> To: 'Fred Baker'; 'IPv6 Operations' >>>> Cc: 'Brian E Carpenter' >>>> Subject: RE: Agenda >>>> >>>> Hi, Fred, >>>> >>>> Could you add Brian Carpenter as co-author and presenter for the >>> following agenda >>>> item? Due to a known bug of auto-submission tool, Brian's name does >>> not recognized. >>>> >>>> An Incremental Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) for IPv6 Transition >>>> Sheng Jiang, Dayong Guo, Brian Carpenter >>>> >>>> Many thanks and best regards, >>>> >>>> Sheng >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org >>>>> [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker >>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 7:55 AM >>>>> To: IPv6 Operations >>>>> Subject: Agenda >>>>> >>>>> So I am finally posting the agenda for our meetings next week. >>>>> I'll blame the delay on the late posting of drafts. Or >>>>> something like that :-) >>>>> >>>>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/agenda/v6ops.html >>>>> >>>>> I need all of the presentations that people plan to use, >>>>> whether in PDF or PPT format, by Sunday night so I can post >>>>> them, please. We will run them from my laptop. >>>>> >>>>> Presenters, some of you have told me you only need ten >>>>> minutes, and I'll be hoping you do that. I asked for two >>>>> 2-hour sessions and got one 2.5 hour and one 1 hour session. >>>>> There is at least one discussion that I expect to warrant some >>>>> extra time, and what we have is about 20 minutes each. >>>>> >>>> >>> > From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 25 15:30:56 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 572183A6D4D for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:30:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.233 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.233 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.367, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 dIKHuFVZ5wsJ for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:30:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6686728C179 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:30:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lmbcj-0004fv-7L for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:31:01 +0000 Received: from [2001:1890:1112:1::20] (helo=mail.ietf.org) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lmbcd-0004fS-5w for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:30:58 +0000 Received: by core3.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 0) id 4F2D13A6D4D; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:30:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Internet-Drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org Subject: I-D Action:draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-00.txt Content-Type: Multipart/Mixed; Boundary="NextPart" Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20090325223001.4F2D13A6D4D@core3.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:30:01 -0700 (PDT) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: --NextPart 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 : IPv6 CPE Router Recommendations Author(s) : H. Singh, W. Beebee Filename : draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-00.txt Pages : 22 Date : 2009-03-25 This document recommends IPv6 behavior for Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) routers in Internet-enabled homes and small offices. The CPE Router may be a standalone device. The CPE Router may also be embedded in a device such as a cable modem, DSL modem, cellular phone, etc. This document describes the router portion of such a device. The purpose behind this document is to provide minimal functionality for interoperability and create consistency in the customer experience and satisfy customer expectations for the device. Further, the document also provide some guidance for implementers to expedite availability of IPv6 CPE router products in the marketplace. It is expected that standards bodies other than the IETF developing standards for specific products in this area (e.g. CableLabs eRouter, Broadband Forum, Home Gateway Initiative, etc.) may reference this work for basic functionality and provide value-added or linktype-specific customizations and enhancements which are beyond the scope of this document. A URL for this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-00.txt Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the Internet-Draft. --NextPart Content-Type: Message/External-body; name="draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-00.txt"; site="ftp.ietf.org"; access-type="anon-ftp"; directory="internet-drafts" Content-Type: text/plain Content-ID: <2009-03-25151535.I-D@ietf.org> --NextPart-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 25 15:51:22 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E39563A6BEA for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:51:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.509 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.509 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.090, BAYES_00=-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 wSmdytMhS0bd for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:51:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 131A13A6833 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:51:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lmbw6-0006aM-In for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:51:02 +0000 Received: from [2001:fa8::25] (helo=mail.nttv6.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lmbvz-0006Zo-0S for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:50:58 +0000 Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.nttv6.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n2PMoqsZ046042 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 07:50:53 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from arifumi@nttv6.net) Message-Id: From: Arifumi Matsumoto To: IPv6 Operations In-Reply-To: <200903252241.57649.remi@remlab.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: [74attendees] The great emphasis on IPv6 - a positive look Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 07:50:52 +0900 References: <1237854355.16613.46.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <200903251916.23679.remi@remlab.net> <49CA851B.2070005@free.fr> <200903252241.57649.remi@remlab.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0.1 (mail.nttv6.net [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 26 Mar 2009 07:50:53 +0900 (JST) Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: > I am using Anycast 6to4 at home and it worksforme(tm). Who is going > to be my > 6RD endpoint when 6to4 is deprecated? My ISP does not provide 6RD. I > don't > know if ny DOCSIS modem is compatible with 6RD, and I know for sure > that my > CPE does not implement 6RD. > > 6RD is NOT an alternative to 6to4. 6RD is an alternative to native > IPv6 for > access networks. To put it another way, 6to4 is deployed by end > sites, whereas > 6RD is deployed by access providers. > > Also IMHO, splitting the IPv6 Internet is a worse idea than keeping > 6to4. Ditto. My 6to4 router at home works fine for me and my family. However, the problem is that 6to4 is preferred than IPv4 and Japan does not have 6to4 relay router until very recently, so sometimes my packets have to go back and force pacific ocean to connect an dual-stack server in my office. The problem of mine can be solved by switching preferences of ipv4 and 6to4. And some people that advocate deprecating 6to4 here seem to be able to live with this trivial change. Of course, you may say that IPv6 address, including 6to4, should be preferred for the sake of NAT unfriendly applications, but it is not worse than losing 6to4. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 25 16:00:18 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A11828C216 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:00:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.872 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.872 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.277, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 9vAKtYIdsHoN for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:00:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B0D13A6BEA for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:00:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lmc4w-0007uz-Ey for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:00:10 +0000 Received: from [209.85.200.169] (helo=wf-out-1314.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lmc4q-0007uF-FA for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:00:07 +0000 Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 28so280677wfc.32 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:00:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=oSidVtVUlpGrSI37CibIntIiMBVe2eW1I0/yatwB6Q4=; b=k2CKKGg2e/I3Q/jCtjsTd3F5YatsqEjECqBMSBuuEFEbr9Q3f7TXm6fbMApORoJxvx uTKXtOv0MN0JnB+OlK9f/Yrq17ds4SawGQvnRmPuy0dVsQlEpLCCQoJ3YLXU5sT1SO1X P1OlHO6AYacXqIKCW8f+G1DGRoDxb/eietxsQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=JcBXYHRD/sRgFtYe6oSu6X8XyChbLwiKiQM9wG5KXWsKXrII9NPwhg7UZXSYKZKtaa 8rZZf4MKL0Pn0pa3UxfUjx21z0/gF5mcaPaI6h2nrrgx0Ql7ut4SdKFCo0QdkROpvYUK yYQYyojfVDQ0oOEPd3/wAi5h1h7c//iosurEU= Received: by 10.142.139.14 with SMTP id m14mr51736wfd.159.1238022004189; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:00:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?130.129.18.229? (dhcp-12e5.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.18.229]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 22sm273120wfd.26.2009.03.25.16.00.02 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:00:03 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49CAB76D.2020607@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 11:59:57 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?UsOpbWkgRGVzcHLDqXM=?= CC: =?UTF-8?B?UsOpbWkgRGVuaXMtQ291cm1vbnQ=?= , IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: 6to4 to non-6to4 References: <1237854355.16613.46.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <49CA47DF.9080307@free.fr> <8337B887-0196-4433-A11D-73DB09434476@apple.com> <200903251916.23679.remi@remlab.net> <49CA851B.2070005@free.fr> <49CAA0D0.4090604@gmail.com> <49CAA9B1.7070302@free.fr> In-Reply-To: <49CAA9B1.7070302@free.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: R=C3=A9mis, and all, Just to summarize for the group a coffee conversation with R=C3=A9mi D and Keith Moore, one possible way forward is a new document describing best (and worst) practice for 6to4 relay deployment, and associated 6to4 host behaviour. Brian On 2009-03-26 11:01, R=C3=A9mi Despr=C3=A9s wrote: > Brian E Carpenter - le (m/j/a) 3/25/09 2:23 PM: >> On 2009-03-26 08:25, R=C3=A9mi Despr=C3=A9s wrote: >> =20 >>> R=C3=A9mi Denis-Courmont - le (m/j/a) 3/25/09 10:16 AM: >>> =20 >>>> On Wednesday 25 March 2009 18:05:36 james woodyatt wrote: >>>> =20 >>>> =20 >>>>> [moving discussion into V6OPS from 74attendees] >>>>> >>>>> On Mar 25, 2009, at 08:03, R=C3=A9mi Despr=C3=A9s wrote: >>>>> =20 >>>>> =20 >>>>>> RFC 3068 (An Anycast Prefix for 6to4 Relay Routers) does more harm= >>>>>> than good. IMHO, it should be deprecated. >>>>>> =20 >>>>>> =20 >>>>> I would support that, providing first that 6RD is A) adopted as a >>>>> proposed standard, and B) comes to see more widespread deployment t= han >>>>> 6to4. I also believe the latter is very likely to happen contingen= t >>>>> on the former, so I would vigorously support taking up 6RD as a >>>>> working group activity. >>>>> =20 >>>>> =20 >>>> Anycast 6to4 has problems. I guess Nathan Ward will present some of = those. 6RD=20 >>>> solves many of the shortcomings of 6to4, _assuming_the_ISP_deploys_i= t_. >>>> >>>> But lest we deprecate the entire scenario of automatic IPv6 setup wi= thout ISP=20 >>>> support, I fail to see how 6RD can replace anycast 6to4. >>>> =20 >>>> =20 >>> Thanks for your comment. >>> >>> Using 6to4 between two 6to4 user sites is NOT a problem, and indeed M= UST remain=20 >>> possible. >>> But using a source 6to4 address to reach a non-6to4 destination IS a = problem,=20 >>> and IMHO MUST be deprecated ASAP. >>> =20 >> >> I'm sorry but this makes no sense. 6to4 users (they exist) need to >> reach the IPv6 Internet, and a 6to4 relay is the only way to do that, >> so they have to exist too. Otherwise we are creating IPv6 islands, whi= ch >> is a bad idea for encouraging adoption. >> >> The fact that the anycast technique leads to black holes is well known= ; >> I've been a victim of it myself. I'd be much happier if 6to4 had been >> deployed as described in RFC3056, but we have to deal with reality. >> Once again, see draft-nward-6to4-qualification for one way to >> do that. >> =20 > Agreed (a partial backtrack): if a 6to4 host first checks that it has a= return=20 > path from a native v6 site, then it may proceed rather than giving up v= 6 and=20 > falling back to v4. >=20 > Note however that, for still some time, falling back to v4 when the qua= lity of=20 > v6 paths is not guaranteed is not a bad choice. > Note also that Nathan's proposal checks only connectivity. Uncertainty = on QoS=20 > remains, due to the lack of control on which 6to4 relay routers are use= d in=20 > return paths. >=20 >>> 6to4 to non-6to4 being the only reason for 6to4 relay routers, and fo= r the 6to4=20 >>> anycast address to reach them, they are what needs being deprecated. >>> >>> I guess RFC 3484 should also be updated to say that a 6to4 address MA= Y be used=20 >>> if both source and destination are 6to4, but ONLY in this case. >>> =20 >> >> Absolutely not. That would make the black hole problem global instead = of >> localised.=20 > In my understanding, backing up to v4 when v6 is not fully reliable doe= sn't=20 > create black holes. It prevents them. > At least where 6to4 qualification is not available yet (and substantial= host=20 > modifications don't come overnight), avoiding 6to4 to non-6to4 remains = IMHO a=20 > good way to avoid people to be disappointed with IPv6 and complain. >=20 > Regards, >=20 > RD From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 25 16:08:06 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AB5B3A6AB7 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:08:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.998 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.503, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 uybHya1Pk7kh for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:08:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79D1B28C1F3 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:07:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmcB0-0008fb-SI for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:06:26 +0000 Received: from [17.254.13.23] (helo=mail-out4.apple.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmcAv-0008dn-5Z for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:06:23 +0000 Received: from relay13.apple.com (relay13.apple.com [17.128.113.29]) by mail-out4.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A23DA5B909C6; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:06:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay13.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay13.apple.com (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with ESMTP id 837A82809D; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:06:20 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 1180711d-ad82fbb000000ff0-d2-49cab8ec1146 Received: from [17.151.77.40] (unknown [17.151.77.40]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay13.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id 54A38280A5; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:06:20 -0700 (PDT) Cc: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" , IPv6 Operations Message-Id: From: james woodyatt To: Hemant Singh (shemant) In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:06:19 -0700 References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <0DD150BF-77BC-4527-BD35-9202F94496E0@apple.com> <95F8ED8E-261B-437C-8063-223D345C364B@apple.com> <943C3A80-979F-4289-BA20-C17D20861111@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> <6161A3E1-DCD1-467F-9AD5-0A15821413A2@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> <9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Mar 25, 2009, at 12:46, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote: > I have also asked in the past to please give us one compelling > reason to make RFC 4191 get into the CPE Rtr document. What > particular option from RFC 4191 do you want to use by the CPE Rtr? I must have missed the request for "one compelling reason" for CPE routers to send and receive RFC 4191 more specific route information messages on their WAN links. My apologies. Please let me clarify my remarks and narrow my request somewhat, now that I've had a chance to review more of the CPE Router draft. I am only interested in such RFC 4191 messages when a valid PIO has been received on the WAN link with L=1. No other cases are interesting. The reason I want this should be obvious: so that a CPE router may advertise its local prefix on the WAN link to other nodes so as to eliminate the need for traffic that originates from them to have to hairpin through their default router to be delivered. -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, communications engineering From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 25 16:17:09 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E7463A6D9C for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:17:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.979 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.979 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.484, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 HhxA6+yNuEmi for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:17:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5025D3A6DC0 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:17:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmcL0-0009ho-Pn for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:16:46 +0000 Received: from [17.254.13.23] (helo=mail-out4.apple.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmcKu-0009hK-FR for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:16:43 +0000 Received: from relay14.apple.com (relay14.apple.com [17.128.113.52]) by mail-out4.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23E9B5B9174F; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:16:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay14.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay14.apple.com (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with ESMTP id 079BA280A4; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:16:40 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 11807134-a805abb000000ff0-7a-49cabb57c0a3 Received: from [17.151.77.40] (unknown [17.151.77.40]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay14.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id DC38A2802F; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:16:39 -0700 (PDT) Cc: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" , "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" Message-Id: <925FA39D-42FC-4E3B-99C7-FA6E0DC7E0B7@apple.com> From: james woodyatt To: IPv6 Operations In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:16:39 -0700 References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <0DD150BF-77BC-4527-BD35-9202F94496E0@apple.com> <95F8ED8E-261B-437C-8063-223D345C364B@apple.com> <943C3A80-979F-4289-BA20-C17D20861111@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> <6161A3E1-DCD1-467F-9AD5-0A15821413A2@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> <9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Mar 25, 2009, at 16:06, james woodyatt wrote: > > Please let me clarify my remarks and narrow my request somewhat, now > that I've had a chance to review more of the CPE Router draft. I am > only interested in such RFC 4191 messages when a valid PIO has been > received on the WAN link with L=1. No other cases are interesting. I take it back. It's interesting in the other cases as well. Two CPE routers attached to the same link will exchange their prefixes with MSR advertisements regardless of whether the RAs from the service provider have PIO options in them. As they should. -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, communications engineering From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Wed Mar 25 18:48:01 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B252628C189 for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:48:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.451 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.451 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.956, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 2YCIeF64vDFV for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:48:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2BAD28C10F for ; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:47:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lmecc-000No8-CL for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:43:06 +0000 Received: from [131.107.115.214] (helo=smtp.microsoft.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmecX-000NnT-SI for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:43:03 +0000 Received: from tk5-exhub-c103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.88.96) by TK5-EXGWY-E803.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.169) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.99.4; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:43:01 -0700 Received: from tk5-exmlt-w602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.18.33) by tk5-exhub-c103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.88.96) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.2.99.4; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:43:01 -0700 Received: from NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([fe80::8de9:51a2:cd62:f122]) by tk5-exmlt-w602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.18.33]) with mapi; Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:43:01 -0700 From: Christian Huitema To: Brian E Carpenter , "nward@braintrust.co.nz" CC: IPv6 Operations Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:42:59 -0700 Subject: Comments on draft-nward-6to4-qualification-00 Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-nward-6to4-qualification-00 Thread-Index: Acmtnj1Ofb+NElTJSVKgvEXpfWPvGwAEWAgA Message-ID: <8EFB68EAE061884A8517F2A755E8B60A1CB3487633@NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> References: <1237854355.16613.46.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <49CA47DF.9080307@free.fr> <8337B887-0196-4433-A11D-73DB09434476@apple.com> <200903251916.23679.remi@remlab.net> <49CA851B.2070005@free.fr> <49CAA0D0.4090604@gmail.com> <49CAA9B1.7070302@free.fr> <49CAB76D.2020607@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <49CAB76D.2020607@gmail.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="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: QXMgQnJpYW4ga2VwdCBtZW50aW9uaW5nIHRoaXMgZHJhZnQgYW5kIGVuY291cmFnZWQgdXMgdG8g cmV2aWV3IGl0LCBJIGp1c3QgZGlkLg0KDQpOYXRoYW4ncyBkcmFmdCBwcm9wb3NlcyB0byB2ZXJp ZnkgNnRvNCBjb25uZWN0aXZpdHkgYmVmb3JlIGNvbmZpZ3VyaW5nIHRoZSA2dG80IGludGVyZmFj ZS4gVGhlIHZlcmlmaWNhdGlvbiBwcm9jZWVkcyBpbiB0d28gc3RlcHMuIEZpcnN0LCB2ZXJpZnkg dGhhdCBhIHdlbGwga25vd24gSVB2NiA2dG80IGFkZHJlc3MgaXMgcmVhY2hhYmxlIG92ZXIgNnRv NCwgYnkgbWVhbnMgb2YgYSBwaW5nIHRlc3QuIFRoZW4sIHZlcmlmeSB0aGF0IGEgd2VsbCBrbm93 biBuYXRpdmUgSVB2NiBhZGRyZXNzIGlzIHJlYWNoYWJsZSB0aHJvdWdoIHRoZSBkZWZhdWx0IDZ0 bzQgcmVsYXlzLCBhZ2FpbiBieSBkb2luZyBhIHBpbmcgdGVzdC4gSWYgdGhlc2UgdHdvIHRlc3Qg c3VjY2VlZCwgdGhlIGludGVyZmFjZSBpcyBxdWFsaWZpZWQgYW5kIHJvdXRlcyBhcmUgaW5zdGFs bGVkLg0KDQpUaGlzIHZlcmlmaWNhdGlvbiBpcyBhIGdvb2QgaWRlYS4gVGhlcmUgaXMgbm8gcG9p bnQgaW4gY29uZmlndXJpbmcgNnRvNCBpZiBpdCBkb2VzIG5vdCB3b3JrLCBlc3BlY2lhbGx5IGlm IG90aGVyIHRlY2hub2xvZ2llcyBsaWtlIFRlcmVkbyBjb3VsZCBiZSB1c2VkLCBvciBpZiByZW1l ZGlhbCBzdGVwcyBjb3VsZCBiZSB0YWtlbiwgbGlrZSBmb3IgZXhhbXBsZSB0cnlpbmcgYSBkaWZm ZXJlbnQgcmVsYXkgYWRkcmVzcy4gTmF0aGFuJ3MgZHJhZnQgYWRkcmVzc2VzIGEgcmVhbCBuZWVk LCBhbmQgSSB3b3VsZCBsaWtlIGl0IHRvIGJlIGFkb3B0ZWQgYXMgYSB3b3JrIGl0ZW0uDQoNClRo ZSBkcmFmdCBpcyBpbmRlZWQgaW4gYW4gaW5pdGlhbCBwcm9wb3NhbC4gSSBoYXZlIHNldmVyYWwg Y29tbWVudHMsIHNvbWUgdGVjaG5pY2FsIGFuZCBzb21lIGVkaXRvcmlhbC4gRmlyc3QsIHRoZSB0 d28gZWRpdG9yaWFsIGNvbW1lbnRzOg0KDQoqIFRoZSBwcm9jZWR1cmVzIGNhbiBiZSBzdW1tYXJp emVkIGluIGEgc2luZ2xlIHBhcmFncmFwaC4gVGhlIGRyYWZ0IHdvdWxkIGJlIGVhc2llciB0byB1 bmRlcnN0YW5kIGlmIHRoZSBhYnN0cmFjdCBpbmNsdWRlZCBzdWNoIGEgc3VtbWFyeS4NCg0KKiBU aGUgZHJhZnQgdXNlcyBwbGFjZSBob2xkZXIgYWNyb255bXMgbGlrZSBUQkQsIFRCRDEsIFRCRDIu IEkgc3VnZ2VzdCBnaXZpbmcgYWN0dWFsIG5hbWVzIHRvIHRoZXNlIHZhcmlhYmxlcywgZS5nLiAi dGhlIDZ0bzQgY29ubmVjdGl2aXR5IHRlc3QgYWRkcmVzcyIsIGFuZCBleHBsYWluaW5nIHRoZSBu YW1lcyBpbiBhICJub3RhdGlvbnMiIHNlY3Rpb24gYXQgdGhlIGJlZ2lubmluZyBvZiB0aGUgZHJh ZnQuDQoNCk5vdywgdGhlIHRlY2huaWNhbCBjb21tZW50czoNCg0KKiB0aGUgZHJhZnQgaW5zdHJ1 Y3RzIElBTkEgdG8gYWxsb2NhdGUgYSAyNCBiaXQgSVB2NCBwcmVmaXguIEdvb2QgbHVjayB3aXRo IHRoYXQuIEkgc3VnZ2VzdCBjb25zaWRlcmluZyBhIGRlc2lnbiB0aGF0IGRvZXMgbm90IGNhcnJ5 IHRoaXMgcmVxdWlyZW1lbnQuDQoNCiogdGhlIGRyYWZ0IHJlcXVlc3RzIGNvbmZpZ3VyYXRpb24g b2YgYm90aCBhIDZ0bzQgYWRkcmVzcyAoVEJEMSg2dG80KSkgYW5kIHRoZSBjb3JyZXNwb25kaW5n IElQdjQgYWRkcmVzcyAoVEJEMShJUHY0KSkuIEl0IHdvdWxkIGJlIHNpbXBsZXIgdG8ganVzdCBj b25maWd1cmUgYSA2dG80IGFkZHJlc3MsIGFuZCBhbGdvcml0aG1pY2FsbHkgZXh0cmFjdCB0aGUg SVB2NCBhZGRyZXNzIGZyb20gdGhhdCA2dG80IGFkZHJlc3MuDQoNCiogVGhlIGRyYWZ0IGFzc3Vt ZXMgdGhhdCB0aGUgdGVzdHMgYXJlIGNvbmR1Y3RlZCB1c2luZyB0d28gd2VsbCBrbm93biBJUHY2 IGFkZHJlc3Nlcy4gVGhlc2UgYWRkcmVzc2VzIGFyZSBsaWtlbHkgdG8gcmVjZWl2ZSBhIGxvdCBv ZiB0cmFmZmljLiBTaW5jZSB0aGUgZHJhZnQgYXR0ZW1wdHMgdG8gY3VyZSBpc3N1ZXMgY2F1c2Vk IGJ5IHRoZSB1c2Ugb2YgYW55Y2FzdCBhZGRyZXNzZXMsIEkgcHJlc3VtZSB3ZSBkbyBub3QgZXhw ZWN0IHRvIHVzZSBhbnljYXN0IGZvciBsb2FkIHNoYXJpbmcuIEhvdyB0aGVuIGRvIHdlIGV4cGVj dCB0byBzdXN0YWluIHRoZSBsb2FkLCBhbmQgcHJvdmlkZSBhZGVxdWF0ZSByZWxpYWJpbGl0eT8N Cg0KDQotLSBDaHJpc3RpYW4gSHVpdGVtYQ0KDQoNCg== From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Mar 26 01:45:20 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AC833A6A98 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:45:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.635 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.635 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.258, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RDNS_NONE=0.1, RELAY_IS_203=0.994] 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 P4NNmFnr96CH for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:45:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C2713A6818 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:45:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lml9K-0009GT-9t for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:41:18 +0000 Received: from [203.6.132.75] (helo=smtp1.mail.adnap.net.au) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lml9F-0009Fj-2R for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:41:15 +0000 Received: from 219-90-154-106.ip.adam.com.au ([219.90.154.106] helo=opy.nosense.org) by smtp1.mail.adnap.net.au with esmtp (Exim 4.63 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lml9B-0001tn-4B; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:11:09 +1030 Received: from opy.nosense.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by opy.nosense.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8C5AF49298; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:11:08 +1030 (CST) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:11:08 +1030 From: Mark Smith To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?"R=E9mi_Denis-Courmont"?= Cc: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: [74attendees] The great emphasis on IPv6 - a positive look Message-Id: <20090326191108.fce4d1e8.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> In-Reply-To: <200903252241.57649.remi@remlab.net> References: <1237854355.16613.46.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <200903251916.23679.remi@remlab.net> <49CA851B.2070005@free.fr> <200903252241.57649.remi@remlab.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.14.7; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) X-Location: Lower Mitcham, South Australia, 5062 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Hi, On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:41:57 +0200 "R=E9mi Denis-Courmont" wrote: > On Wednesday 25 March 2009 21:25:15 R=E9mi Despr=E9s wrote: > > > ... > > Using 6to4 between two 6to4 user sites is NOT a problem, and indeed > > MUST remain possible.
> > But using a source 6to4 address to reach a non-6to4 destination IS a > > problem, and IMHO MUST be deprecated ASAP.
>=20 > I am using Anycast 6to4 at home and it worksforme(tm). Who is going to be= my=20 > 6RD endpoint when 6to4 is deprecated? My ISP does not provide 6RD. I don'= t=20 > know if ny DOCSIS modem is compatible with 6RD, and I know for sure that = my=20 > CPE does not implement 6RD. >=20 > 6RD is NOT an alternative to 6to4. 6RD is an alternative to native IPv6 f= or=20 > access networks. To put it another way, 6to4 is deployed by end sites, wh= ereas =20 > 6RD is deployed by access providers. >=20 I agree with Remi, 6RD isn't a functionally equivalent alternative to 6to4. Here in .au ADSL routers are owned by the customer, not managed by the ISP, so deploying IPv6 via 6RD is unfortunately not an option. Regards, Mark. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Mar 26 01:55:26 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A7A83A6452 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:55:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.748 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.071, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RDNS_NONE=0.1, RELAY_IS_203=0.994] 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 xZnt2LW8gwG3 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:55:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D5993A6A91 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 01:55:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmlMj-000AV2-ND for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:55:09 +0000 Received: from [203.6.132.75] (helo=smtp1.mail.adnap.net.au) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmlMd-000AUY-Pz for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:55:06 +0000 Received: from 219-90-154-106.ip.adam.com.au ([219.90.154.106] helo=opy.nosense.org) by smtp1.mail.adnap.net.au with esmtp (Exim 4.63 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmlMV-0002cQ-R4; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:24:55 +1030 Received: from opy.nosense.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by opy.nosense.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6D3ED49298; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:24:55 +1030 (CST) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:24:55 +1030 From: Mark Smith To: james woodyatt Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant) , "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" , IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Message-Id: <20090326192455.dbcedfab.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> In-Reply-To: References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <0DD150BF-77BC-4527-BD35-9202F94496E0@apple.com> <95F8ED8E-261B-437C-8063-223D345C364B@apple.com> <943C3A80-979F-4289-BA20-C17D20861111@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> <6161A3E1-DCD1-467F-9AD5-0A15821413A2@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> <9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.14.7; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) X-Location: Lower Mitcham, South Australia, 5062 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Hi, On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:06:19 -0700 james woodyatt wrote: > On Mar 25, 2009, at 12:46, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote: > > I have also asked in the past to please give us one compelling > > reason to make RFC 4191 get into the CPE Rtr document. What > > particular option from RFC 4191 do you want to use by the CPE Rtr? > > I must have missed the request for "one compelling reason" for CPE > routers to send and receive RFC 4191 more specific route information > messages on their WAN links. My apologies. > > Please let me clarify my remarks and narrow my request somewhat, now > that I've had a chance to review more of the CPE Router draft. I am > only interested in such RFC 4191 messages when a valid PIO has been > received on the WAN link with L=1. No other cases are interesting. > > The reason I want this should be obvious: so that a CPE router may > advertise its local prefix on the WAN link to other nodes so as to > eliminate the need for traffic that originates from them to have to > hairpin through their default router to be delivered. > I agree with James. An implementation model of ADSL with Ethernet backhaul (TR-101) is to have all CPE sitting in the same "bridged Ethernet over ADSL" VLAN, ethernet switched in the local telephone exchange / C.O., with the default router off site, also in the same VLAN. Having the CPE announce their prefixes to each other would keep inter-CPE traffic off of the expensive backhaul links. If P2P applications/traffic become much more locality aware, this would be of great benefit. Regards, Mark. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Mar 26 02:13:18 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEAC83A682F for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 02:13:18 -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, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 vDU8s-TSx8vK for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 02:13:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1989B3A6452 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 02:13:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lmldu-000Cg9-3D for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:12:54 +0000 Received: from [2001:738:0:411::241] (helo=mail.ki.iif.hu) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lmldo-000Cfa-4W for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:12:50 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by mail.ki.iif.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 026CB84F3B; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:12:46 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mignon.ki.iif.hu Received: from mail.ki.iif.hu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mignon.ki.iif.hu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id ef7eyt-eAdQt; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:12:42 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail.ki.iif.hu (Postfix, from userid 9002) id 96FAD84F11; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:12:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.ki.iif.hu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 906D084EC2; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:12:42 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:12:42 +0100 (CET) From: Mohacsi Janos X-X-Sender: mohacsi@mignon.ki.iif.hu To: Mark Smith cc: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?R=E9mi_Denis-Courmont?= , IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: [74attendees] The great emphasis on IPv6 - a positive look In-Reply-To: <20090326191108.fce4d1e8.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> Message-ID: References: <1237854355.16613.46.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <200903251916.23679.remi@remlab.net> <49CA851B.2070005@free.fr> <200903252241.57649.remi@remlab.net> <20090326191108.fce4d1e8.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="0-996390965-1238058762=:25486" Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --0-996390965-1238058762=:25486 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Mark Smith wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:41:57 +0200 > "Rémi Denis-Courmont" wrote: > >> On Wednesday 25 March 2009 21:25:15 Rémi Després wrote: >>> >> ... >>> Using 6to4 between two 6to4 user sites is NOT a problem, and indeed >>> MUST remain possible.
>>> But using a source 6to4 address to reach a non-6to4 destination IS a >>> problem, and IMHO MUST be deprecated ASAP.
>> >> I am using Anycast 6to4 at home and it worksforme(tm). Who is going to be my >> 6RD endpoint when 6to4 is deprecated? My ISP does not provide 6RD. I don't >> know if ny DOCSIS modem is compatible with 6RD, and I know for sure that my >> CPE does not implement 6RD. >> >> 6RD is NOT an alternative to 6to4. 6RD is an alternative to native IPv6 for >> access networks. To put it another way, 6to4 is deployed by end sites, whereas >> 6RD is deployed by access providers. >> > > I agree with Remi, 6RD isn't a functionally equivalent alternative to > 6to4. The most important difference is that 6RD forcing to the provider to provision their own relay. > > Here in .au ADSL routers are owned by the customer, not managed > by the ISP, so deploying IPv6 via 6RD is unfortunately not an option. As most of the case in the world. Usually the DSL modem owned by the provider, but not the router. But there are some countries you can own your own DSL modem. In the DOCSIS architecture the cable modem, always owned by the provider, potentially can be made more smart to support 6RD, however most of the user already installed dumb soho router without ipv6 support. Best Regards, Janos Mohacsi --0-996390965-1238058762=:25486-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Mar 26 02:47:15 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F3B33A6A90 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 02:47:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.425 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.425 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.125, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 I4wf9dp+MOjo for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 02:47:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7009F3A6452 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 02:47:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lmm9K-000FyI-Aq for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:45:22 +0000 Received: from [2001:41e0:ff00:0:216:3eff:fe00:4] (helo=abaddon.unfix.org) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lmm9E-000Fx3-CP for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:45:19 +0000 Received: from [IPv6:2001:620:20:1001:216:d3ff:fe25:14da] (spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com [IPv6:2001:620:20:1001:216:d3ff:fe25:14da]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jeroen) by abaddon.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 001BE401FFD; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:45:14 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <49CB4EA9.8020601@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:45:13 +0100 From: Jeroen Massar Organization: Unfix User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.21) Gecko/20090302 Lightning/0.9 Thunderbird/2.0.0.21 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?R=E9mi_Despr=E9s?= CC: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: [74attendees] The great emphasis on IPv6 - a positive look References: <1237854355.16613.46.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <49CA47DF.9080307@free.fr> <8337B887-0196-4433-A11D-73DB09434476@apple.com> <200903251916.23679.remi@remlab.net> <49CA851B.2070005@free.fr> In-Reply-To: <49CA851B.2070005@free.fr> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 OpenPGP: id=333E7C23 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig45F5DD7043D4F838E350AAE6" X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.94.2, clamav-milter version 0.94.2 on abaddon.unfix.org X-Virus-Status: Clean Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig45F5DD7043D4F838E350AAE6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable R=E9mi Despr=E9s wrote: [..] > Using 6to4 between two 6to4 user sites is NOT a problem, and indeed MUS= T > remain possible. > But using a source 6to4 address to reach a non-6to4 destination IS a > problem, and IMHO MUST be deprecated ASAP. I full agree with this. > 6to4 to non-6to4 being the only reason for 6to4 relay routers, and for > the 6to4 anycast address to reach them, they are what needs being > deprecated. >=20 > I guess RFC 3484 should also be updated to say that a 6to4 address MAY > be used if both source and destination are 6to4, but ONLY in this case.= The idea of 6to4 is great and it also works pretty nifty in practice. The idea of 6to4+anycast was also good, but unfortunately one gets several layers of BGP-pull and misconfiguration which are very hard to debug and thus solve, especially as one will never have access to all nodes in both IPv4 and IPv6 paths, both ways, to correctly debug it. On a controlled network that works, but on the wide internet this doesn't and only causes a lot of issues. I have to state though that there are a LOT of happy 6to4 users, but they are only accessing more or less local resources. Thus network-wise not too far away, which thus makes it a more or less controlled environme= nt. Greets, Jeroen --------------enig45F5DD7043D4F838E350AAE6 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) iD8DBQFJy06sKaooUjM+fCMRAl4FAJ9NqG65xOemzyntLwY7A03eV5zjsACeMXY5 pJw/x/kckR2t0QZRcfR6BVM= =kWEC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig45F5DD7043D4F838E350AAE6-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Mar 26 02:52:02 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39C2A3A6882 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 02:52:02 -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, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 aqszcBP9ip0a for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 02:52:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 572793A6452 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 02:52:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmmFp-000Gil-5U for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:52:05 +0000 Received: from [2a00:801::f] (helo=uplift.swm.pp.se) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmmFj-000Ghh-Cx for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:52:02 +0000 Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id BF5929C; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:51:57 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD41C9A for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:51:57 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:51:57 +0100 (CET) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments In-Reply-To: <20090326192455.dbcedfab.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> Message-ID: References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <95F8ED8E-261B-437C-8063-223D345C364B@apple.com> <943C3A80-979F-4289-BA20-C17D20861111@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> <6161A3E1-DCD1-467F-9AD5-0A15821413A2@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> <9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com> <20090326192455.dbcedfab.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Mark Smith wrote: > I agree with James. An implementation model of ADSL with Ethernet > backhaul (TR-101) is to have all CPE sitting in the same "bridged > Ethernet over ADSL" VLAN, ethernet switched in the local telephone > exchange / C.O., with the default router off site, also in the same > VLAN. Having the CPE announce their prefixes to each other would keep > inter-CPE traffic off of the expensive backhaul links. If P2P > applications/traffic become much more locality aware, this would be of > great benefit. This sound like a huge security problem, how are those implications handled? Wouldn't the L2 device in the CO need to be able to inspect all these messages and drop ones which are not assigned to that specific customer by the ISP? In the scenarios I have seen before mechanisms such as forced forwarding and/or mac rewrite/DHCP snooping based ACLs been used in the CO L2 device to handle this, what are the IPv6 equivalents in this scenario? -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se From downing@wa-bigalscasino.com Thu Mar 26 03:23:15 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91E413A6BE1; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 03:23:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -12.523 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FS_REPLICA=0.994, HELO_EQ_PL=1.135, HOST_EQ_PL=1.95, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 U9rBuczBiwYK; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 03:23:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from chello089079136160.chello.pl (chello089079136160.chello.pl [89.79.136.160]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 366B23A6CE8; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 03:23:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Qualitative Breitling watches at Exquisite Replicas Message-ID: From: "Carissa Buck" Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit To: "Alyce Dodge" Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 06:24:06 -0500 Have you seen the latest Gucci handbags, from their 2009 collection? They're so beautiful and stylish... and so expensive! But I just found this store, Exquisite Replicas, that offers them at just a fraction of their cost. Granted, they're replicas, but they look just like the real deal, and the prices are so low, that now you can have not just one Gucci bag, but two or three of them! The best part is that at Exquisite Replicas they have such a wide collection, organized by styles, that you'll feel like a kid in a candy store! Seriously, if you love Gucci bags, you will adore Exquisite Replicas! http://lacerear.com From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Mar 26 04:36:35 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AC493A6403 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 04:36:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.495 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 cZeMzzQUw-U4 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 04:36:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2AEB3A6A3F for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 04:36:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lmnql-000P1F-94 for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 11:34:19 +0000 Received: from [192.107.41.63] (helo=rdsmtp.iglou.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lmnqg-000P0d-H0 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 11:34:16 +0000 Received: from iglou3.iglou.com ([192.107.41.6] helo=mail.iglou.com) by rdsmtp.iglou.com with esmtpa (Exim MTA/8.19.3) (envelope-from ) id 1Lmnqf-0004GI-Qp by authid with igloumta_auth for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 07:34:13 -0400 Received: from h120.16.19.98.dynamic.ip.windstream.net ([98.19.16.120] helo=jmcadams-mbp.local) by smtp.iglou.com with esmtpsa (TLS cipher TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim MTA/8.19.3) (envelope-from ) id 1Lmnqf-0003qi-DZ by authid with auth_plain for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 07:34:13 -0400 Message-ID: <49CB682F.505@iglou.com> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 07:34:07 -0400 From: Jeff McAdams User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: [74attendees] The great emphasis on IPv6 - a positive look References: <1237854355.16613.46.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <200903251916.23679.remi@remlab.net> <49CA851B.2070005@free.fr> <200903252241.57649.remi@remlab.net> <20090326191108.fce4d1e8.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: 98.19.16.120 X-IgLou-Customer: 0c0a260d80e111167f90f22b5835da5e Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Mohacsi Janos wrote: > On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Mark Smith wrote: >> I agree with Remi, 6RD isn't a functionally equivalent alternative to >> 6to4. > The most important difference is that 6RD forcing to the provider to > provision their own relay. Except that it doesn't. This is a little bit of semantics on the surface, but there's a very real point behind it. Many ISPs don't care about supporting IPv6 yet. If you, as a customer, call their support line to task about it, you basically get something along the lines of, "What's IPv6? Have you rebooted your Windows and your (cable|DSL) modem?" If ISPs don't care enough to support, or even have an inkling of IPv6, they're also not going to deploy anything like 6RD (though I admit I'm just picking up on the 6RD conversation...but if it requires ISPs to deploy something, its basically dead in the water for a long time still). There are many people (myself included) that are happily using 6to4, and we're using 6to4 because the ISPs available to us are utterly and completely clueless, so we don't really have any other option. If the 6to4 anycast goes away and you require the ISP to deploy something for the replacement technology, you are effectively cutting us off from the IPv6 Internet for the foreseeable future. The only other option I see is hard to manage and configure, and frequently bandwidth constrained, tunnel brokers. Oh, and my CPE supports 6to4, but not a tunnel broker sort of setup (at least that I can find...Apple Airport Extreme) I don't have any problem with 6RD as an additional transition mechanism...I'm not sure its worth the effort, but if people want to go down that path, then that's their choice...but please don't take away 6to4 anycast gateway or I, and several households that I work with, go away from the IPv6 Internet. >> Here in .au ADSL routers are owned by the customer, not managed >> by the ISP, so deploying IPv6 via 6RD is unfortunately not an option. > > > As most of the case in the world. Usually the DSL modem owned by the > provider, but not the router. But there are some countries you can own > your own DSL modem. In the DOCSIS architecture the cable modem, always > owned by the provider, potentially can be made more smart to support > 6RD, however most of the user already installed dumb soho router without > ipv6 support. > > Best Regards, > Janos Mohacsi -- Jeff McAdams jeffm@iglou.com From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Mar 26 07:59:12 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9513C3A6BC3 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 07:59:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.841 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.841 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.346, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 fnOTJ3Bud4qm for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 07:59:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A80413A6814 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 07:59:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lmr15-000KFZ-8k for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:57:11 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.117] (helo=sj-iport-6.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lmr10-000KFG-9o for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:57:08 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,426,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="274600254" Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Mar 2009 14:57:05 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2QEv5I9019331; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:57:05 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2QEv5FO025747; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:57:05 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.40]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:57:05 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:57:04 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: Acmt+LzWcNrShkYRS0C9ZPEd9ljo3AAKi+8g References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <95F8ED8E-261B-437C-8063-223D345C364B@apple.com> <943C3A80-979F-4289-BA20-C17D20861111@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> <6161A3E1-DCD1-467F-9AD5-0A15821413A2@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> <9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com> <20090326192455.dbcedfab.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" To: "Mikael Abrahamsson" , "IPv6 Operations" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Mar 2009 14:57:05.0098 (UTC) FILETIME=[209C6AA0:01C9AE23] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=617; t=1238079425; x=1238943425; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20comm ents |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Mikael=20Abrahamsson=22=20,=0A= 20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=22IPv6=20Operations=22=20; bh=HWc7HpIP0MvHV9+sT3C8drzn1V7ci0efJS9/cTzmi0I=; b=iBo7IswkVpGDvUxyQTDjaivnRyxuyotDGPI05oJz8tQPcrlLHI3ZF3dBwR A/dofg0OxQDm36ZSBCYA0HtzpPragP+u8+ZqCGvKTJI2j4XaWrBfqi31CuXY X94KMG7vX/; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=shemant@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: >This sound like a huge security problem, how are those implications=20 >handled? Wouldn't the L2 device in the CO need to be able to inspect all=20 >these messages and drop ones which are not assigned to that specific=20 >customer by the ISP? >In the scenarios I have seen before mechanisms such as forced forwarding=20 >and/or mac rewrite/DHCP snooping based ACLs been used in the CO L2 device=20 >to handle this, what are the IPv6 equivalents in this scenario? Thank you, Mikael. I just sent email that I too consider such behavior to be a security hole and gave the rationale for it. Hemant From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Mar 26 07:59:21 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B6273A6B4F for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 07:59:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.377 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.782, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, MANGLED_WANT=2.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 sHscSlgjhsNr for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 07:59:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BA643A6A4F for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 07:59:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmqzK-000K6l-F8 for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:55:22 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.117] (helo=sj-iport-6.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmqzC-000K5j-4z for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:55:16 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,426,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="274599074" Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Mar 2009 14:55:13 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2QEtCCN018080; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:55:12 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2QEtCaD024932; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:55:12 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.40]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:55:12 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:55:11 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <925FA39D-42FC-4E3B-99C7-FA6E0DC7E0B7@apple.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: Acmtn8NPb/dWspXYRnODFO9GkKezLwAgXPQw References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <0DD150BF-77BC-4527-BD35-9202F94496E0@apple.com> <95F8ED8E-261B-437C-8063-223D345C364B@apple.com> <943C3A80-979F-4289-BA20-C17D20861111@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> <6161A3E1-DCD1-467F-9AD5-0A15821413A2@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> <9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com> <925FA39D-42FC-4E3B-99C7-FA6E0DC7E0B7@apple.com> From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" To: "james woodyatt" , "IPv6 Operations" Cc: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Mar 2009 14:55:12.0752 (UTC) FILETIME=[DDA5C700:01C9AE22] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=4522; t=1238079312; x=1238943312; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20comm ents |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22james=20woodyatt=22=20,=20=22IPv6= 20Operations=22=20; bh=3ZNtKnjeoZJcpsIkIO89LHShMg+tBNgnVela05Da7BE=; b=hgFpAFXRa1yjoxVYJI/jBvXMkZY+xCmpRMkWGWDxNeGdwKK5IZuS3X79td 0NI5NWA+Jp6TCV/qM7KeZhKX56ITApsf7RmIK4PNHOBuyL4uIKlMSyd0IU6z M2Q/zKtq/y; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=shemant@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: James and Mark, Did you see the security liaison sent to v6ops from the DSL Broadband Forums folks? Fred Baker sent it out to the v6ops mailer this week. DSL is precisely discussing a fact that modems will have to go thru a default router rather than communicating directly to each other which is what you two are proposing. I think we have to let the Broadband forum complete their IPv6 standards and then depending upon what they do, we can revisit this RFC 4191 question. =20 At this point I would like you all to see this text below that I and Wes wrote in an expired draft of draft-wbeebee-on-link-and-off-link-determination-01.txt. Hemant [3. Router Models The Redirect Clarifications section clarifies RFC 4861 [ND] host and router behavior for an aggregation router deployment. The Aggregation Router Deployment Model section presents a possible aggregation router deployment model for IPv6 and discusses its properties with respect to ND. Aggregation routers can service more than 100,000 subscribers. Due to scaling considerations, any NS for global address resolution from any host to any other host should not reach the aggregation router. 3.1. Aggregation Router Deployment Model A property of routed aggregation networks is that hosts cannot directly communicate with each other even if they share the same prefix. Physical connectivity between the aggregation router and the modems prevents hosts behind modems to communicate directly with each other. Hosts send their traffic to aggregation router. This design is motivated by scaling and security considerations. If every host could receive all traffic from every other host, then the subscriber's privacy would be violated and the amount of bandwidth available for each subscriber would be very small. That is why hosts communicate between each other through the aggregation router, which is also the IPv6 first-hop router. For scaling reasons, any NS to resolve any address other than that of the default router should not reach the aggregation router. +-----+ | | |Aggre+----(Rtr CPE)----Host1 Core----WAN----+gator| | Rtr | | +----(Br CPE)----(Cust Rtr)----Host2 +-----+ Figure 1. In the figure above, the customer premises equipment (CPE) is managed by the ISP and is deployed behind an aggregation router that is an IPv6 first-hop router and also a DHCPv6 relay agent. IPv6 CPEs are either IPv6 routers (Rtr CPE) or IPv6 bridges (Br CPE). If the customer premises uses a bridge CPE, then a router (Cust Rtr) is needed. All hosts reside behind a router CPE or a customer router. No NS to resolve any address other than that of the default router Singh & Beebee Expires July 4, 2008 [Page 7] Internet-Draft ND On-link Determination January 2008 will reach the aggregation router from any device on the customer side of the aggregator. CPEs do not communicate with each other in this deployment model since a CPE does not run any applications that need to communicate with other CPEs. Hosts do communicate with each other, but every host is off-link to any other host on the aggregation router.] -----Original Message----- From: james woodyatt [mailto:jhw@apple.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:17 PM To: IPv6 Operations Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); Wes Beebee (wbeebee) Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments On Mar 25, 2009, at 16:06, james woodyatt wrote: > > Please let me clarify my remarks and narrow my request somewhat, now =20 > that I've had a chance to review more of the CPE Router draft. I am =20 > only interested in such RFC 4191 messages when a valid PIO has been =20 > received on the WAN link with L=3D1. No other cases are interesting. I take it back. It's interesting in the other cases as well. Two CPE =20 routers attached to the same link will exchange their prefixes with =20 MSR advertisements regardless of whether the RAs from the service =20 provider have PIO options in them. As they should. -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, communications engineering From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Mar 26 08:14:01 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BC603A6A3D for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:14:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.271 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.271 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.211, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 oDA0Hkx1lvka for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:14:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45B573A6835 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:14:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmrGb-000LsL-Te for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:13:13 +0000 Received: from [80.12.242.27] (helo=smtp20.orange.fr) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmrGW-000Lru-IS for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:13:10 +0000 Received: from RD-Mac.local (ip-69-33-231-250.sjc.megapath.net [69.33.231.250]) by mwinf2012.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id E82B62000068; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:13:06 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20090326151306951.E82B62000068@mwinf2012.orange.fr Message-ID: <49CB9B06.9030202@free.fr> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:11:02 -0700 From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?R=E9mi_Despr=E9s?= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeroen Massar CC: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: [74attendees] The great emphasis on IPv6 - a positive look References: <1237854355.16613.46.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <49CA47DF.9080307@free.fr> <8337B887-0196-4433-A11D-73DB09434476@apple.com> <200903251916.23679.remi@remlab.net> <49CA851B.2070005@free.fr> <49CB4EA9.8020601@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <49CB4EA9.8020601@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Jeroen Massar  -  le (m/j/a) 3/26/09 2:45 AM: 
Rémi Després wrote:
[..]
  
Using 6to4 between two 6to4 user sites is NOT a problem, and indeed MUST
remain possible.
But using a source 6to4 address to reach a non-6to4 destination IS a
problem, and IMHO MUST be deprecated ASAP.
    

I full agree with this.

  
6to4 to non-6to4 being the only reason for 6to4 relay routers, and for
the 6to4 anycast address to reach them, they are what needs being
deprecated.

I guess RFC 3484 should also be updated to say that a 6to4 address MAY
be used if both source and destination are 6to4, but ONLY in this case.
    

The idea of 6to4 is great and it also works pretty nifty in practice.

The idea of 6to4+anycast was also good, but unfortunately one gets
several layers of BGP-pull and misconfiguration which are very hard to
debug and thus solve, especially as one will never have access to all
nodes in both IPv4 and IPv6 paths, both ways, to correctly debug it.
On a controlled network that works, but on the wide internet this
doesn't and only causes a lot of issues.

I have to state though that there are a LOT of happy 6to4 users, but
they are only accessing more or less local resources. Thus network-wise
not too far away, which thus makes it a more or less controlled environment.
If they do 6to4 to 6to4, which I suppose should often be the case so far, they are quite right to be happy. They have a good service.
And this will remain so as long as they don't try to do 6to4 to non 6to4 without checking first that a path exists, which current OS don't do.

Even if connectivity is checked, the QoS of the 6to4 relay router they happen to have used is in general not guaranteed, so that backing up to IPv4 may in general be safer. (This problem doesn't exist with 6rd.)

Regards,

RD

From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Mar 26 08:42:32 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F47328C10A for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:42:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.407 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.407 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.107, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 6SBsqQt4mcOO for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:42:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E9CE28C0F4 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:42:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmriL-000PFT-D0 for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:41:53 +0000 Received: from [2001:41e0:ff00:0:216:3eff:fe00:4] (helo=abaddon.unfix.org) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmriE-000PDa-RS for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:41:49 +0000 Received: from [IPv6:2001:620:20:1001:216:d3ff:fe25:14da] (spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com [IPv6:2001:620:20:1001:216:d3ff:fe25:14da]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jeroen) by abaddon.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4653E40203C; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:41:41 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <49CBA237.1000401@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:41:43 +0100 From: Jeroen Massar Organization: Unfix User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.21) Gecko/20090302 Lightning/0.9 Thunderbird/2.0.0.21 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?R=E9mi_Despr=E9s?= CC: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: [74attendees] The great emphasis on IPv6 - a positive look References: <1237854355.16613.46.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <49CA47DF.9080307@free.fr> <8337B887-0196-4433-A11D-73DB09434476@apple.com> <200903251916.23679.remi@remlab.net> <49CA851B.2070005@free.fr> <49CB4EA9.8020601@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <49CB9B06.9030202@free.fr> In-Reply-To: <49CB9B06.9030202@free.fr> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 OpenPGP: id=333E7C23 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig7A4A4449CF2B3EC462AA5DCC" X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.94.2, clamav-milter version 0.94.2 on abaddon.unfix.org X-Virus-Status: Clean Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig7A4A4449CF2B3EC462AA5DCC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable R=E9mi Despr=E9s wrote: [..] >> I have to state though that there are a LOT of happy 6to4 users, but >> they are only accessing more or less local resources. Thus network-wis= e >> not too far away, which thus makes it a more or less controlled enviro= nment. >> =20 > If they do 6to4 to 6to4, which I suppose should often be the case so > far, they are quite right to be happy. They have a good service. > > And this will remain so as long as they don't try to do 6to4 to non 6to= 4 > without checking first that a path exists, which current OS don't do. Indeed. Though there are lots of users also happily using anycasted-6to4. The reason being that the services they are using from their 6to4 address are located at ISPs that are either clueful and pro-active in fixing issues or that they are located closely to the relay which is their anycast node. In that case one basically has an automatically set-up proto-41 tunnel directly to the service you are using, and then things work quite smoothly. The moment though that other networks, who did setup 6to4 but who don't really check their service get involved, then things start to break miraculously. And as a content-provider on native IPv6 there is not much to do about those kind of networks, but they do affect connectivity to the enduser. > Even if connectivity is checked, the QoS of the 6to4 relay router they > happen to have used is in general not guaranteed, so that backing up to= > IPv4 may in general be safer. (This problem doesn't exist with 6rd.) Well it doesn't exist in 6rd because then the infrastructure is all ISP owned and most likely they do care about their network. Note that 'checking connectivity' is not always a good thing, especially when one is checking connectivity to a well-maintained service, that one might work, but any other network will just still fail. Greets, Jeroen --------------enig7A4A4449CF2B3EC462AA5DCC Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) iD8DBQFJy6I3KaooUjM+fCMRAjcfAJ4/wH6E7Riz0boLhhI/sp1aCeYHxQCfX4xO DtgKVPvIKLtCX9TUxPPkETY= =z6xe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig7A4A4449CF2B3EC462AA5DCC-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Mar 26 08:59:25 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02AE13A6C16 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:59:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.218 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.218 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.243, BAYES_20=-0.74, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 fh2nK8wEvpnN for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:59:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2315A3A6835 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:59:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmrxT-0001Zx-Sb for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:57:31 +0000 Received: from [80.12.242.49] (helo=smtp21.orange.fr) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmrxO-0001Yu-07 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:57:28 +0000 Received: from dhcp-17b6.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-17b6.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.23.182]) by mwinf2121.orange.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 556901C0008F; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:57:24 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20090326155724349.556901C0008F@mwinf2121.orange.fr Message-ID: <49CBA567.3090901@free.fr> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:55:19 -0700 From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?R=E9mi_Despr=E9s?= User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeff McAdams CC: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: [74attendees] The great emphasis on IPv6 - a positive look References: <1237854355.16613.46.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <200903251916.23679.remi@remlab.net> <49CA851B.2070005@free.fr> <200903252241.57649.remi@remlab.net> <20090326191108.fce4d1e8.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> <49CB682F.505@iglou.com> In-Reply-To: <49CB682F.505@iglou.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Jeff McAdams - le (m/j/a) 3/26/09 4:34 AM: > Mohacsi Janos wrote: >> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Mark Smith wrote: >>> I agree with Remi, 6RD isn't a functionally equivalent alternative to >>> 6to4. > >> The most important difference is that 6RD forcing to the provider to >> provision their own relay. > > > Except that it doesn't. > > This is a little bit of semantics on the surface, but there's a very > real point behind it. > > Many ISPs don't care about supporting IPv6 yet. If you, as a > customer, call their support line to task about it, you basically get > something along the lines of, "What's IPv6? Have you rebooted your > Windows and your (cable|DSL) modem?" > > If ISPs don't care enough to support, or even have an inkling of IPv6, > they're also not going to deploy anything like 6RD (though I admit I'm > just picking up on the 6RD conversation...but if it requires ISPs to > deploy something, its basically dead in the water for a long time still). When you read draft-despres-6rd-02, you will see that Free, the second largest ISP in France, with millions os DSL customers, deployed 6rd in 5 weeks (6rd stands for IPv6 Rapid Deployment.) > > There are many people (myself included) that are happily using 6to4, > and we're using 6to4 because the ISPs available to us are utterly and > completely clueless, so we don't really have any other option. If the > 6to4 anycast goes away and you require the ISP to deploy something for > the replacement technology, you are effectively cutting us off from > the IPv6 Internet for the foreseeable future. The point is that ISPs, rather than setting up a 6to4 relay router should setup a 6rd Gateway in order to offer native IPv6 prefix to their customers. > The only other option I see is hard to manage and configure, and > frequently bandwidth constrained, tunnel brokers. > > Oh, and my CPE supports 6to4, but not a tunnel broker sort of setup > (at least that I can find...Apple Airport Extreme) > > I don't have any problem with 6RD as an additional transition > mechanism...I'm not sure its worth the effort, but if people want to > go down that path, then that's their choice...but please don't take > away 6to4 anycast gateway or I, and several households that I work > with, go away from the IPv6 Internet. Taking them away is not needed. It's only that using them without precautions to reach native IPv6 servers will lead to customer frustration with, at least sometimes, poor quality IPv6 experience, something to be avoided. Regards, RD From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Mar 26 09:41:10 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BD3628C193 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:41:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -109.372 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.372 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.877, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 C5EME1ZL1Hfg for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:41:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A88128C0E4 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:41:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lmsd2-0006Kw-SJ for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:40:28 +0000 Received: from [131.107.115.212] (helo=smtp.microsoft.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lmscr-0006Iq-1Y for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:40:25 +0000 Received: from tk5-exhub-c104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.88.97) by TK5-EXGWY-E801.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.99.4; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:40:10 -0700 Received: from tk5-exmlt-w602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.18.33) by tk5-exhub-c104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.88.97) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.2.99.4; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:40:09 -0700 Received: from NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([fe80::8de9:51a2:cd62:f122]) by tk5-exmlt-w602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.18.33]) with mapi; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:40:09 -0700 From: Christian Huitema To: Jeroen Massar CC: IPv6 Operations Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:40:08 -0700 Subject: RE: [74attendees] The great emphasis on IPv6 - a positive look Thread-Topic: [74attendees] The great emphasis on IPv6 - a positive look Thread-Index: AcmuKfEI0oKG3f3+Tb2ODeT6Oy05hgABE1pw Message-ID: <8EFB68EAE061884A8517F2A755E8B60A1CB3487793@NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> References: <1237854355.16613.46.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <49CA47DF.9080307@free.fr> <8337B887-0196-4433-A11D-73DB09434476@apple.com> <200903251916.23679.remi@remlab.net> <49CA851B.2070005@free.fr> <49CB4EA9.8020601@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <49CB9B06.9030202@free.fr> <49CBA237.1000401@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <49CBA237.1000401@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.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 Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: > From: Jeroen Massar, Thursday, March 26, 2009 8:42 AM > Indeed. Though there are lots of users also happily using anycasted- > 6to4. The reason being that the services they are using from their 6to4 > address are located at ISPs that are either clueful and pro-active in > fixing issues or that they are located closely to the relay which is > their anycast node. In that case one basically has an automatically > set-up proto-41 tunnel directly to the service you are using, and then > things work quite smoothly. > > The moment though that other networks, who did setup 6to4 but who don't > really check their service get involved, then things start to break > miraculously. And as a content-provider on native IPv6 there is not > much to do about those kind of networks, but they do affect > connectivity to the enduser. Jeroen gives a good description of the problem. Anycast is convenient, but = unpredictable. In theory, anycast allows 6to4 nodes to always use the relay= closest to them, which should provide for a good service. In practice, tha= t works well when the relay is actually close, e.g. managed by the local pr= ovider, but not so well when the relay is remote and the route to it obtain= ed through several BGP hops. There are several possible mitigations to this issue. An obvious mitigation is, "deploy more relays." The hope when writing RFC 3= 068 was that many providers would deploy many relays for local use, and thu= s users would be mostly be using local relays. When there are many relays, = the reliance on BGP is minimal, and the service becomes much more reliable.= Of course, I realize that if the IETF recommend deploying more relays, pro= viders may or may not follow the recommendation. The cost of deploying rela= ys is not very high, but the benefits are also not very high, essentially a= slight reduction in the amount of tunneled traffic through the providers i= nterconnections and probably also a slight reduction in the number of suppo= rt calls. Even so, clear messages from the IETF would certainly help. Another mitigation is to "avoid 6to4 when it does not work" -- and presumab= ly use another technology in these cases. This is the approach documented i= n Nathan Ward's draft. It makes a lot of sense from an operational point of= view, but it requires that the end systems implement test procedures. This= will probably happen over time. On the other hand, if we consider updating= end system, we can also consider changes to end system that increase the r= eliability of 6to4. Since RFC 3068 was published, there have been several suggestions for impro= vements. One possibility is to explicitly provision a 6to4 gateway in the 6= to4 node. This is obviously a tradeoff, as sending traffic to a remote gate= way may be less efficient than sending traffic to the closest anycast gatew= ay -- but it is also much more predictable. An interesting possibility woul= d be to combine this provisioning with the test procedure, maybe testing se= veral gateways and selecting the one that works best. -- Christian Huitema From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Mar 26 09:43:50 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C1853A6DFF for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:43:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.968 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.968 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.073, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 wPQEnk0cFujy for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:43:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A772828B23E for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:43:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lmsgd-0006fU-6e for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:44:11 +0000 Received: from [74.125.92.24] (helo=qw-out-2122.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmsgY-0006f1-OY for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:44:08 +0000 Received: by qw-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 8so494197qwh.65 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:44:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ta2Tv5M4W6Ll0EQUVe6nprl5G+ijrOD0evdvZ45AEMA=; b=tnXwnAh44ZdIWOKQ8O9I8aXiIjHRWHVFGCqSs02iNG5dy7KmLJ1quRizkbJQAhAOSq Rh+aqLytZ7qgV72FD/xDSocfQ4iO1w4KW5kU2J8wt6Z02tok5vKE/3TRkKZ6bsi4ffh6 +hCVQlURVT3/lghhO+AVBGWVaJfe6EpiZeOH4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=XKFrV55zzwA6tnVkZ0DR3GTNcpNFh9rzinj8LAIFFgEyFcyYTq/Eftkqywm0Sgcj4+ dPQIU66hNnrIBvSrCDCQyCHDm2CkpskDbExpwH1wr57KVMvFKcI+WPuunnth+6OSktxJ jRBz3/y2aYbaEqSHRfpGj8ivaWb92gTp33sZI= Received: by 10.143.3.7 with SMTP id f7mr450803wfi.65.1238085845205; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:44:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?130.129.18.229? (dhcp-12e5.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.18.229]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 28sm563755wfg.11.2009.03.26.09.44.03 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:44:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49CBB0C9.40908@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 05:43:53 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" CC: james woodyatt , IPv6 Operations , "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <95F8ED8E-261B-437C-8063-223D345C364B@apple.com> <943C3A80-979F-4289-BA20-C17D20861111@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> <6161A3E1-DCD1-467F-9AD5-0A15821413A2@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> <9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com> <925FA39D-42FC-4E3B-99C7-FA6E0DC7E0B7@apple.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Hemant, On 2009-03-27 03:55, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote: > James and Mark, > > Did you see the security liaison sent to v6ops from the DSL Broadband > Forums folks? Fred Baker sent it out to the v6ops mailer this week. > DSL is precisely discussing a fact that modems will have to go thru a > default router rather than communicating directly to each other which is > what you two are proposing. I think we have to let the Broadband forum > complete their IPv6 standards and then depending upon what they do, we > can revisit this RFC 4191 question. If the broadband forum people don't want a use case with direct CPE-CPE communication, that's their choice, but we shouldn't artificially restrict this in the base spec for CPEs, IMHO. We write IPv6 basic standards; they apply them to their use cases. Brian From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Mar 26 09:53:24 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8131D3A6DFF for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:53:24 -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, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 VtV28F1eqryM for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:53:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E1B73A6DA3 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:53:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmspM-0007st-G4 for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:53:12 +0000 Received: from [2a00:801::f] (helo=uplift.swm.pp.se) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmspH-0007s2-DE for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:53:09 +0000 Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id BE59A9C; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:53:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC8279A; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:53:05 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:53:05 +0100 (CET) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: AW: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <943C3A80-979F-4289-BA20-C17D20861111@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> <6161A3E1-DCD1-467F-9AD5-0A15821413A2@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> <9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com> <20090326192455.dbcedfab.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII; FORMAT=flowed Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de wrote: > Normally the customers are separated from each other by split horizont mchanisms and MAC adress translation techniques. Yes, but that defeats the whole purpose of the proposal from Mark Smith if I correctly interpret the scenario he proposed. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Mar 26 09:56:38 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CCF628C0E8 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:56:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.495 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 W3R+6CD+o6qr for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:56:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EC7A28C154 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:56:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lmsss-0008Tz-2T for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:56:50 +0000 Received: from [192.107.41.63] (helo=rdsmtp.iglou.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lmssn-0008TR-FE for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:56:47 +0000 Received: from iglou3.iglou.com ([192.107.41.6] helo=mail.iglou.com) by rdsmtp.iglou.com with esmtpa (Exim MTA/8.19.3) (envelope-from ) id 1Lmssm-0007FM-Oh by authid with igloumta_auth for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:56:44 -0400 Received: from pixout.appriss.com ([63.126.72.25] helo=jmcadams-mbp.office.appriss.com) by smtp.iglou.com with esmtpsa (TLS cipher TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim MTA/8.19.3) (envelope-from ) id 1Lmssm-0007eb-Cm by authid with auth_plain for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:56:44 -0400 Message-ID: <49CBB3C9.7010104@iglou.com> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:56:41 -0400 From: Jeff McAdams User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: [74attendees] The great emphasis on IPv6 - a positive look References: <1237854355.16613.46.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <200903251916.23679.remi@remlab.net> <49CA851B.2070005@free.fr> <200903252241.57649.remi@remlab.net> <20090326191108.fce4d1e8.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> <49CB682F.505@iglou.com> <49CBA567.3090901@free.fr> In-Reply-To: <49CBA567.3090901@free.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: 63.126.72.25 X-IgLou-Customer: 0c0a260d80e111167f90f22b5835da5e Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Rémi Després wrote: > Jeff McAdams - le (m/j/a) 3/26/09 4:34 AM: >> If ISPs don't care enough to support, or even have an inkling of IPv6, >> they're also not going to deploy anything like 6RD (though I admit I'm >> just picking up on the 6RD conversation...but if it requires ISPs to >> deploy something, its basically dead in the water for a long time still). > When you read draft-despres-6rd-02, you will see that Free, the second > largest ISP in France, with millions os DSL customers, deployed 6rd in 5 > weeks (6rd stands for IPv6 Rapid Deployment.) And that's great for them. Seriously, I applaud them for that. But my comment was about ISPs that just flat-out don't care. At all. In the slightest. And sadly, this is a significant fraction of the consumer ISPs. Free, in France, clearly cares about IPv6 and wants to deploy it in the most reliable and effective way possible. Again, I applaud that wholeheartedly. Let me know when Windstream, here in the US responds to questions about IPv6 with anything other than, "Have you rebooted your computer and DSL modem?" Earlier in the thread, there was discussion of taking away anycast 6to4 gateways. That's the only thing that I'm against, here. If you and others want to deploy 6RD, fantastic, more power to you. If Windstream deploys 6RD, I'll try to take advantage of it as well...I'm definitely not holding my breath that they will, though. In the meantime, without 6to4 anycast relays, my only other option for IPv6 connectivity is harder-to-manage-and-configure tunnel broker connections. Realistically, removing 6to4 anycast relays cuts me off from the IPv6 Internet. >> I don't have any problem with 6RD as an additional transition >> mechanism...I'm not sure its worth the effort, but if people want to >> go down that path, then that's their choice...but please don't take >> away 6to4 anycast gateway or I, and several households that I work >> with, go away from the IPv6 Internet. > Taking them away is not needed. It's only that using them without > precautions to reach native IPv6 servers will lead to customer > frustration with, at least sometimes, poor quality IPv6 experience, > something to be avoided. I haven't experienced any significant negative behaviors from 6to4 anycast relays. I know that its possible, and troubleshooting that case is hard, very hard even. Its uncommon enough, in my experience at least, that 6to4 is a reasonable, if not perfect, transition mechanism for use on an ISP that just is utterly clueless that the Internet is anything more than HTTP on port 80 and 443 (as far as I know, Windstream's email infrastructure is webmail only...*sheesh*) All I'm asking for is to not deprecate 6to4 anycast relays as part of 6RD. Using 6RD looks like (after a quick perusal of the draft...certainly don't qualify as an expert on it) a reasonable improvement as a transition mechanism, at least in networks where the ISP wishes to support IPv6 access. Just don't forget about us poor folks on the truly clueless ISPs that want to help push the IPv6 adoption cause forward. -- Jeff McAdams jeffm@iglou.com From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Mar 26 12:40:13 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50C783A6C0D for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:40:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.028 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.028 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.533, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 tf3dn-2c9pdE for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:40:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58AE83A67C1 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:40:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmvPP-0002c4-CF for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:38:35 +0000 Received: from [216.82.250.83] (helo=mail120.messagelabs.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmvPJ-0002bX-EO for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:38:32 +0000 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: bs7652@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-4.tower-120.messagelabs.com!1238096307!40155364!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.0.0; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.53] Received: (qmail 18415 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2009 19:38:27 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.53) by server-4.tower-120.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 26 Mar 2009 19:38:27 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n2QJcN3q021830; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:38:23 -0400 Received: from 01GAF5142010624.AD.BLS.COM (01GAF5142010624.ad.bls.com [139.76.131.91]) by mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with SMTP id n2QJcG9Y021701; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:38:16 -0400 Received: from 01NC27689010626.AD.BLS.COM ([90.144.44.201]) by 01GAF5142010624.AD.BLS.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:38:16 -0400 Received: from 01NC27689010641.AD.BLS.COM ([90.144.44.103]) by 01NC27689010626.AD.BLS.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:38:16 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:38:14 -0400 Message-ID: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0D880CA8@crexc41p> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: Acmtn8NPb/dWspXYRnODFO9GkKezLwAgXPQwAAiNR8A= References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <0DD150BF-77BC-4527-BD35-9202F94496E0@apple.com> <95F8ED8E-261B-437C-8063-223D345C364B@apple.com> <943C3A80-979F-4289-BA20-C17D20861111@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> <6161A3E1-DCD1-467F-9AD5-0A15821413A2@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> <9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com> <925FA39D-42FC-4E3B-99C7-FA6E0DC7E0B7@apple.com> From: "Stark, Barbara" To: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" , "james woodyatt" , "IPv6 Operations" Cc: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Mar 2009 19:38:16.0054 (UTC) FILETIME=[687C0160:01C9AE4A] Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: > I think we have to let the Broadband forum > complete their IPv6 standards and then depending upon what they do, we > can revisit this RFC 4191 question. =20 The capabilities described in RFC 4191 are certainly something the BBF is looking at, and it would be interesting to hear IETF thoughts on the cases that it might handle.=20 Here are some possible scenarios: (1) CPE Router has multiple WAN connections. Let's say one is a "default" connection that goes to the Internet, while the other is a connection to a walled garden, or a corporate network, or such. The CPE router gets prefixes delegated from each, and makes those prefixes available on its LAN. Is it appropriate / useful for the secondary network to use RFC 4191 to state which prefixes are behind it? In this case, the CPE router would need to put that information in its routing table. Should the CPE Router also use RFC 4191 to tell devices on its LAN that it supports "default" routes plus these secondary prefixes? (2) CPE Router has a wired WAN connection and a backup wireless WAN connection. Both support "default" connectivity. RFC 4191 could be used by the wireless connection to state that it's less preferred. A better solution would probably be to just configure the CPE router with that knowledge. The wireless network isn't the right place to house the knowledge of whether or not it's preferred. I don't think RFC 4191 would be used well here, but it's something to think about. (3) The home has multiple connections through multiple routers. Perhaps one of these routers is like the router in (1) above, while another router also supplies a "default" connection, and yet a 3rd supplies a connection to a walled garden service (maybe it does this by tunneling over one of the other connections -- if so, this should be invisible to the hosts in the LAN). Each router advertises prefix(es) to the LAN. It makes sense for the router to also advertise which prefixes it can route, especially the walled garden prefixes, which may not be accessible through any other connection. RIPng (or other protocols like it) doesn't really seem to be the right answer here. As mentioned in the CPE Router draft, it has scalability concerns in the access network. And it seems kind of weird in the LAN. But using RFC 4191 to supply route info in the RA would be pretty easy. This route info is fairly static. By the way -- these are all real scenarios. People and service providers do these things. They just don't always do them well, today. (1) is particularly common in IPv4, and is handled through static routing table entries. Barbara From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Mar 26 12:40:21 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10CCA3A6C57 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:40:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 Z1YOPJhAkr8Q for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:40:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21C243A6B2C for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:40:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmvNM-0002L6-Nn for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:36:28 +0000 Received: from [2001:1888:0:1:230:48ff:fe5b:3b50] (helo=outgoing01.lava.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmvNH-0002Kf-BQ for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 19:36:25 +0000 Received: from [2001:1888::a:214:51ff:fe29:1e4e] (unknown [IPv6:2001:1888:0:a:214:51ff:fe29:1e4e]) by outgoing01.lava.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16A58D22D3; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:36:16 -1000 (HST) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:36:16 -1000 (HST) From: Antonio Querubin To: Mikael Abrahamsson cc: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <95F8ED8E-261B-437C-8063-223D345C364B@apple.com> <943C3A80-979F-4289-BA20-C17D20861111@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> <6161A3E1-DCD1-467F-9AD5-0A15821413A2@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> <9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com> <20090326192455.dbcedfab.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> User-Agent: Alpine 1.00 (OSX 882 2007-12-20) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > This sound like a huge security problem, how are those implications handled? > Wouldn't the L2 device in the CO need to be able to inspect all these > messages and drop ones which are not assigned to that specific customer by > the ISP? Perhaps you're assuming that multiple customers are sharing the same subnet? In the case where customers do NOT share subnets, I fail to see how this adds a security problem that didn't already exist before. In IPv4, if a DSL provider gives a customer a /28 instead of /30 for the WAN link, that customer could easily hang multiple CPE routers off of their WAN-side ethernet switch now and they could talk to each other. Some of our customers use their WAN subnet as a DMZ and their routers are firewalls. But the communication on the WAN subnet between customer devices stays on the local ethernet switch and shouldn't traverse the DSL loop. I don't think we should cripple that capability for IPv6. Antonio Querubin whois: AQ7-ARIN From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Mar 26 13:15:21 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDD093A6832 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:15:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 BxCb04eVga7f for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:15:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2B7E3A6B83 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:15:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmvyC-0007IA-ET for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:14:32 +0000 Received: from [2001:1888:0:1:230:48ff:fe5b:3b8c] (helo=outgoing02.lava.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lmvy5-0007Gm-Hm for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:14:28 +0000 Received: from [2001:1888::a:214:51ff:fe29:1e4e] (unknown [IPv6:2001:1888:0:a:214:51ff:fe29:1e4e]) by outgoing02.lava.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D48F5170642; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:14:20 -1000 (HST) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:14:18 -1000 (HST) From: Antonio Querubin To: "Stark, Barbara" cc: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" , james woodyatt , IPv6 Operations , "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments In-Reply-To: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0D880CA8@crexc41p> Message-ID: References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <95F8ED8E-261B-437C-8063-223D345C364B@apple.com> <943C3A80-979F-4289-BA20-C17D20861111@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> <6161A3E1-DCD1-467F-9AD5-0A15821413A2@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> <9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com> <925FA39D-42FC-4E3B-99C7-FA6E0DC7E0B7@apple.com> <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0D880CA8@crexc41p> User-Agent: Alpine 1.00 (OSX 882 2007-12-20) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Stark, Barbara wrote: > The capabilities described in RFC 4191 are certainly something the BBF > is looking at, and it would be interesting to hear IETF thoughts on the > cases that it might handle. > > Here are some possible scenarios: > (1) CPE Router has multiple WAN connections. Let's say one is a > (2) CPE Router has a wired WAN connection and a backup wireless WAN > connection. Both support "default" connectivity. RFC 4191 could be used > (3) The home has multiple connections through multiple routers. Perhaps > > RIPng (or other protocols like it) doesn't really seem to be the right > answer here. As mentioned in the CPE Router draft, it has scalability > concerns in the access network. And it seems kind of weird in the LAN. > But using RFC 4191 to supply route info in the RA would be pretty easy. > This route info is fairly static. > > By the way -- these are all real scenarios. People and service providers > do these things. They just don't always do them well, today. (1) is > particularly common in IPv4, and is handled through static routing table Concur. Even for the general case of multiple cascaded CPERs, I think we do want them to know how to talk directly to each other rather than forcing all intra-customer traffic through the next upstream CPER. Antonio Querubin whois: AQ7-ARIN From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Mar 26 13:32:14 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9102328C122 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:32:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.756 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.756 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.261, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 K00ArBNZAIyU for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:32:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 565CA28C111 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:32:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmwEe-0009Sw-Dk for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:31:32 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.72] (helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmwEY-0009SD-UG for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:31:29 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,428,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="147267051" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Mar 2009 20:31:26 +0000 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2QKVQQV011717; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:31:26 -0700 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2QKVPbQ006809; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:31:26 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.40]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:31:25 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:31:22 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <925FA39D-42FC-4E3B-99C7-FA6E0DC7E0B7@apple.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: Acmtn8NPb/dWspXYRnODFO9GkKezLwAsRmqQ References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <0DD150BF-77BC-4527-BD35-9202F94496E0@apple.com> <95F8ED8E-261B-437C-8063-223D345C364B@apple.com> <943C3A80-979F-4289-BA20-C17D20861111@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> <6161A3E1-DCD1-467F-9AD5-0A15821413A2@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> <9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com> <925FA39D-42FC-4E3B-99C7-FA6E0DC7E0B7@apple.com> From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" To: "james woodyatt" , "IPv6 Operations" Cc: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Mar 2009 20:31:25.0922 (UTC) FILETIME=[D5CB3C20:01C9AE51] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1503; t=1238099486; x=1238963486; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20comm ents |Sender:=20; bh=nEcMO5O0lJ9Q4HgUypk7Hqs5RSKomM8F+ThN4vrX0gg=; b=xnY2VKHJkxZhpoE4IFgiGq5+eXCNxahfc1RVcc6akhRpGyYObnW5Qi64IT rFy752MILpeuDRB0A5VeMt1oPW7NN2cuhGIf8yifyzpSEg3/6tsh0EYgs0z9 8MobDU/P73; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=shemant@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: James, -----Original Message----- From: james woodyatt [mailto:jhw@apple.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:17 PM To: IPv6 Operations Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); Wes Beebee (wbeebee) Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments >I take it back. It's interesting in the other cases as well. Two CPE >routers attached to the same link will exchange their prefixes with =20 >MSR advertisements regardless of whether the RAs from the service =20 >provider have PIO options in them. As they should. Wow! Next time it is better you send us ascii diagram of the network topology you are talking about because I was on a totally different page than you were. Thanks to my Cisco colleague in Ole who talked with you at the IETF and then Ole pinged my buddy Wes and explained your topology, I realized, I am talking one thing while you are talking another. We were all thinking that the CPE Rtr would be the first hop in the home while you were describing a hub directly behind the broadband modem. The hub is a totally broken model to deploy your Airport Extreme with the Apple TV. The hub sends all your video to the SP, say Comcast, and your home access will be shutdown fairly soon because the home hogged so much of their network bandwidth with the video going between the Apple TV and Airport Extreme. Sorry, I don't consider this totally broken network as a reason to add MSR RFC 4191 to the CPE Rtr just yet. Thanks, Wes, and Ole. Hemant From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Mar 26 13:48:45 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC5BB3A67F2 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:48:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.979 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.979 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.485, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 I5ABnVgRBI5s for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:48:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83C2B3A6846 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:48:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmwTY-000BNV-Eu for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:46:56 +0000 Received: from [216.82.250.147] (helo=mail129.messagelabs.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmwTO-000BLW-MW for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:46:50 +0000 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: bs7652@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-12.tower-129.messagelabs.com!1238100404!3414062!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.0.0; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.53] Received: (qmail 2941 invoked from network); 26 Mar 2009 20:46:45 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.53) by server-12.tower-129.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 26 Mar 2009 20:46:45 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n2QKkhkI013959; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:46:44 -0400 Received: from 01GAF5142010621.AD.BLS.COM (01GAF5142010621.ad.bls.com [139.76.131.79]) by mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with SMTP id n2QKkdPw013882; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:46:39 -0400 Received: from 01NC27689010627.AD.BLS.COM ([90.144.44.202]) by 01GAF5142010621.AD.BLS.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:46:38 -0400 Received: from 01NC27689010641.AD.BLS.COM ([90.144.44.103]) by 01NC27689010627.AD.BLS.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:46:38 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.3168 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9AE53.F551DE1F" Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:46:37 -0400 Message-ID: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA08AB7B02@crexc41p> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments thread-index: AcmuTEo2RSCXvBcoQe6Z3XWDcu+/rwAB6tS4 From: "Stark, Barbara" To: , CC: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Mar 2009 20:46:38.0299 (UTC) FILETIME=[F59CEAB0:01C9AE53] Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9AE53.F551DE1F Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable That's an interesting use case, with definite application, but I wonder = if it's really compelling in the case of the simple CPE Router.=20 When CPE Routers are cascaded, the cascaded router is generally directly = connected to the upstream router, so that there would be no added = efficiencies from this.=20 Also, service providers that I talk to are quite adamant about not = wanting to see RAs coming at them from the WAN interfaces of CPE = Routers. I could easily envision some SPs disabling connections where = they see RAs. So CPE Routers that did this could potentially create a = very bad user experience, if there were Terms and Conditions (that the = customer agreed to but didn't read or necessarily understand) that said = it was forbidden for them to have their router send RAs.=20 I would rather if sending RAs out a WAN interface were considered a = function for medium/high end business or enterprise routers, but not CPE = routers. I think you will see CPE routers supplied by service providers = will not do RA (or any other route advertisement) to the WAN.=20 Barbara ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org To: Mikael Abrahamsson Cc: IPv6 Operations Sent: Thu Mar 26 15:36:16 2009 Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > This sound like a huge security problem, how are those implications = handled?=20 > Wouldn't the L2 device in the CO need to be able to inspect all these=20 > messages and drop ones which are not assigned to that specific = customer by=20 > the ISP? Perhaps you're assuming that multiple customers are sharing the same=20 subnet? In the case where customers do NOT share subnets, I fail to see = how this adds a security problem that didn't already exist before. In=20 IPv4, if a DSL provider gives a customer a /28 instead of /30 for the = WAN=20 link, that customer could easily hang multiple CPE routers off of their=20 WAN-side ethernet switch now and they could talk to each other. Some of = our customers use their WAN subnet as a DMZ and their routers are=20 firewalls. But the communication on the WAN subnet between customer=20 devices stays on the local ethernet switch and shouldn't traverse the = DSL=20 loop. I don't think we should cripple that capability for IPv6. Antonio Querubin whois: AQ7-ARIN ***** The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to = which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or = privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other = use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by = persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If = you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the = material from all computers. GA621 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9AE53.F551DE1F Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

That's an interesting use case, with definite = application, but I wonder if it's really compelling in the case of the = simple CPE Router.

When CPE Routers are cascaded, the cascaded router is generally directly = connected to the upstream router, so that there would be no added = efficiencies from this.

Also, service providers that I talk to are quite adamant about not = wanting to see RAs coming at them from the WAN interfaces of CPE = Routers. I could easily envision some SPs disabling connections where = they see RAs. So CPE Routers that did this could potentially create a = very bad user experience, if there were Terms and Conditions (that the = customer agreed to but didn't read or necessarily understand) that said = it was forbidden for them to have their router send RAs.

I would rather if sending RAs out a WAN interface were considered a = function for medium/high end business or enterprise routers, but not CPE = routers. I think you will see CPE routers supplied by service providers = will not do RA (or any other route advertisement) to the WAN.
Barbara

----- Original Message -----
From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Thu Mar 26 15:36:16 2009
Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:

> This sound like a huge security problem, how are those implications = handled?
> Wouldn't the L2 device in the CO need to be able to inspect all = these
> messages and drop ones which are not assigned to that specific = customer by
> the ISP?

Perhaps you're assuming that multiple customers are sharing the same
subnet?  In the case where customers do NOT share subnets, I fail = to see
how this adds a security problem that didn't already exist before.  = In
IPv4, if a DSL provider gives a customer a /28 instead of /30 for the = WAN
link, that customer could easily hang multiple CPE routers off of = their
WAN-side ethernet switch now and they could talk to each other.  = Some of
our customers use their WAN subnet as a DMZ and their routers are
firewalls.  But the communication on the WAN subnet between = customer
devices stays on the local ethernet switch and shouldn't traverse the = DSL
loop.  I don't think we should cripple that capability for = IPv6.

Antonio Querubin
whois:  AQ7-ARIN

*****

The information = transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is = addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged = material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or = taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or = entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you = received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the = material from all computers. GA621

 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9AE53.F551DE1F-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Mar 26 13:57:16 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 969553A6846 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:57:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.745 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.745 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.251, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 tqHmKQEJr0SM for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:57:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AFDA3A67F2 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:57:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmwdX-000Ccx-4G for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:57:15 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.71] (helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmwdQ-000CbY-2U for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:57:11 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,428,1233532800"; d="scan'208,217";a="147221878" Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Mar 2009 20:57:06 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2QKv6mq024950; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:57:06 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2QKv65Y007569; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:57:06 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.118]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:57:06 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9AE55.6BD3DC1C" Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:57:05 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA08AB7B02@crexc41p> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: AcmuTEo2RSCXvBcoQe6Z3XWDcu+/rwAB6tS4AABPPqA= References: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA08AB7B02@crexc41p> From: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" To: "Stark, Barbara" , , Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Mar 2009 20:57:06.0522 (UTC) FILETIME=[6C1023A0:01C9AE55] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=4337; t=1238101026; x=1238965026; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=wbeebee@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Wes=20Beebee=20(wbeebee)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20comm ents |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Stark,=20Barbara=22=20,=20,=20; bh=qRwTrMEA3tvzjZCrNtLRceZIdIx97JP4WSy7kj2AHuY=; b=ddLU1P60dFe+jECE4l+4DBUhnJyFG7WTABKPGqP4gpeVifVJZugzaOXmVX YHno2reAyHTHL+OTJzy1U2iRsbQYEmkEPF2uRT9LEC9IlH9cB0MWiq+E3dp5 msKYzTbBxz; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=wbeebee@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9AE55.6BD3DC1C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Agree, whole-heartedly!!! We recommend CMTS service providers block upstream RA's. =20 - Wes ________________________________ From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stark, Barbara Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 4:47 PM To: tony@lava.net; swmike@swm.pp.se Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments That's an interesting use case, with definite application, but I wonder if it's really compelling in the case of the simple CPE Router. When CPE Routers are cascaded, the cascaded router is generally directly connected to the upstream router, so that there would be no added efficiencies from this. Also, service providers that I talk to are quite adamant about not wanting to see RAs coming at them from the WAN interfaces of CPE Routers. I could easily envision some SPs disabling connections where they see RAs. So CPE Routers that did this could potentially create a very bad user experience, if there were Terms and Conditions (that the customer agreed to but didn't read or necessarily understand) that said it was forbidden for them to have their router send RAs. I would rather if sending RAs out a WAN interface were considered a function for medium/high end business or enterprise routers, but not CPE routers. I think you will see CPE routers supplied by service providers will not do RA (or any other route advertisement) to the WAN. Barbara ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9AE55.6BD3DC1C Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments
Agree, whole-heartedly!!!   We = recommend CMTS=20 service providers block upstream RA's.
 
- Wes

From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org=20 [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stark,=20 Barbara
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 4:47 PM
To:=20 tony@lava.net; swmike@swm.pp.se
Cc:=20 v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: = draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20 comments

That's an interesting use case, with definite = application, but I=20 wonder if it's really compelling in the case of the simple CPE=20 Router.

When CPE Routers are cascaded, the cascaded router is = generally=20 directly connected to the upstream router, so that there would be no = added=20 efficiencies from this.

Also, service providers that I talk to = are quite=20 adamant about not wanting to see RAs coming at them from the WAN = interfaces of=20 CPE Routers. I could easily envision some SPs disabling connections = where they=20 see RAs. So CPE Routers that did this could potentially create a very = bad user=20 experience, if there were Terms and Conditions (that the customer agreed = to but=20 didn't read or necessarily understand) that said it was forbidden for = them to=20 have their router send RAs.

I would rather if sending RAs out a = WAN=20 interface were considered a function for medium/high end business or = enterprise=20 routers, but not CPE routers. I think you will see CPE routers supplied = by=20 service providers will not do RA (or any other route advertisement) to = the=20 WAN.
Barbara

------_=_NextPart_001_01C9AE55.6BD3DC1C-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Mar 26 14:04:44 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E98C83A69AF for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:04:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.746 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.746 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.251, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 0WTcI6Ih6eEJ for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:04:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1AFD3A67F2 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:04:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmwkX-000Dft-PS for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:04:29 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.71] (helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmwkH-000DdJ-DO for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:04:25 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,428,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="147226213" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 26 Mar 2009 21:04:12 +0000 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2QL4CrT024760; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:04:12 -0700 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2QL4COa010948; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:04:12 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.40]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:04:12 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:04:11 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0D880CA8@crexc41p> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: Acmtn8NPb/dWspXYRnODFO9GkKezLwAgXPQwAAiNR8AABJKPAA== References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <0DD150BF-77BC-4527-BD35-9202F94496E0@apple.com> <95F8ED8E-261B-437C-8063-223D345C364B@apple.com> <943C3A80-979F-4289-BA20-C17D20861111@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> <6161A3E1-DCD1-467F-9AD5-0A15821413A2@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> <9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com> <925FA39D-42FC-4E3B-99C7-FA6E0DC7E0B7@apple.com> <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0D880CA8@crexc41p> From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" To: "Stark, Barbara" , "james woodyatt" , "IPv6 Operations" Cc: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Mar 2009 21:04:12.0378 (UTC) FILETIME=[69E49BA0:01C9AE56] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=496; t=1238101452; x=1238965452; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20comm ents |Sender:=20; bh=9lwAuv/LJ9L+zxV0G9WqI5kyW4nycuQ6fWcgo5q/1h0=; b=ifokp8681+o1GIy6rdZHalEm8BRrdNKM1pARApnds+oRIUT7hhylbRkTlP 2pPxnj4mrlw7Y/dwpMtisxr9dpPOsIMF0UymcZbickzCA/uQx0fk+DxIXzA4 8XMWF0NYYg; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=shemant@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: >And it seems kind of weird in the LAN. For two or more routers that have to communicate between each other in a LAN, using RIPng between the routers is the most common-place and sensible thing to do including if two routers sit in a broadband connected home. Yes, if one has router to host communication going on, then some other protocol may make sense. Thanks for providing your typical customer deployments. We will go thru them and see what we can suggest. Thanks, Hemant From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Mar 26 14:08:35 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A755B3A6AA4 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:08:35 -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 ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LmKrSe2Rqgf2 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:08:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C80613A69AF for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:08:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lmwon-000EEx-NB for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:08:53 +0000 Received: from [2a00:801::f] (helo=uplift.swm.pp.se) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lmwoh-000EEC-Qm for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:08:50 +0000 Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 20D199C; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 22:08:46 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DF369A; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 22:08:46 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 22:08:46 +0100 (CET) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: Antonio Querubin cc: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <943C3A80-979F-4289-BA20-C17D20861111@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> <6161A3E1-DCD1-467F-9AD5-0A15821413A2@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> <9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com> <20090326192455.dbcedfab.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Antonio Querubin wrote: > Perhaps you're assuming that multiple customers are sharing the same > subnet? In the case where customers do NOT share subnets, I fail to see > how this adds a security problem that didn't already exist before. In > IPv4, if a DSL provider gives a customer a /28 instead of /30 for the > WAN link, that customer could easily hang multiple CPE routers off of > their WAN-side ethernet switch now and they could talk to each other. > Some of our customers use their WAN subnet as a DMZ and their routers > are firewalls. But the communication on the WAN subnet between customer > devices stays on the local ethernet switch and shouldn't traverse the > DSL loop. I don't think we should cripple that capability for IPv6. Yes I was under the impression that what Mark Smith was referring to was multiple residential customer CPEs (different unrelated households) in the same subnet with ethernet backhaul. As long as there is only a single administrative entity per subnet, no security implications arise, just as you say. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Mar 26 14:15:07 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09CA43A6955 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:15:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.127 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.127 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 8B8t3UnJpyOP for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:15:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2535C3A67F2 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:15:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lmwuc-000F2X-Rb for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:14:54 +0000 Received: from [209.85.220.162] (helo=mail-fx0-f162.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LmwuX-000F1b-M0 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:14:52 +0000 Received: by fxm6 with SMTP id 6so775528fxm.41 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:14:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=dUkmFAGhhKR5Pitkq3mQCN0K4aQoSfQvy1TRZKMappY=; b=sUplLm/XeNx3gooCprWPy8/m4SeNOg4dEUrzEBPuYI6A88W9P8mOkQjni5VitoZTAf RPBaSwWfu4R3XqOrDKRtcQIIcCP5ikYhS1/QD8fbZxl5pxmC6VI8C/CtnOEcnA9JXgFi zOLeG8To06+uq2zqtJK3OXjPXyPKyWUC0D3k8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=S2QNjHJk+KUb9mIrYGLaVJCcjD72mgEglWTWgNNcu/aMcOSGpDk1wwgHt4nz8ScW9h v4u0Y5hsKp6onmy+jykmtaKXiMynNmB7DY9xd4wa03/YoIV4VeiVyR7SkK6Z5lkBJ/Q7 +wmk0/74/CzbyNj0S7MtMTqHTMLP3ebVA+JmA= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.103.24.11 with SMTP id b11mr72571muj.76.1238102087637; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:14:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> <9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com> <925FA39D-42FC-4E3B-99C7-FA6E0DC7E0B7@apple.com> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:14:47 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: a75b15470c739f03 Message-ID: <2bbba3c10903261414l315aa210s7ac1cc050d113d07@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments From: Ole Troan To: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" Cc: james woodyatt , IPv6 Operations , "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: >>I take it back. =A0It's interesting in the other cases as well. =A0Two CP= E > >>routers attached to the same link will exchange their prefixes with >>MSR advertisements regardless of whether the RAs from the service >>provider have PIO options in them. =A0As they should. > > > Wow! Next time it is better you send us ascii diagram of the network > topology you are talking about because I was on a totally different page > than you were. =A0Thanks to my Cisco colleague in Ole who talked with you > at the IETF and then Ole pinged my buddy Wes and explained your > topology, I realized, I am talking one thing while you are talking > another. =A0We were all thinking that the CPE Rtr would be the first hop > in the home while you were describing a hub directly behind the > broadband modem. =A0The hub is a totally broken model to deploy your > Airport Extreme with the Apple TV. =A0The hub sends all your video to the > SP, say Comcast, and your home access will be shutdown fairly soon > because the home hogged so much of their network bandwidth with the > video going between the Apple TV and Airport Extreme. Sorry, I don't > consider this totally broken network as a reason to add MSR RFC 4191 to > the CPE Rtr just yet. I think the model is to have a switch behind the CM so you wouldn't need to congest the upstream. Ole From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Mar 26 18:17:14 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 841283A696B for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:17:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.247 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.247 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.353, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 9BE0xAyPjEu3 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:17:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BDA273A693F for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:17:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Ln0dU-000HEA-8D for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 01:13:28 +0000 Received: from [198.24.6.3] (helo=imr2.ericy.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Ln0dJ-000HCB-0l for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 01:13:25 +0000 Received: from eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw750.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.50]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n2R1DBJH027321; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:13:12 -0500 Received: from ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se ([142.133.1.72]) by eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:11:20 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9AE78.EF506978" Subject: RE: Liaison from the Broadband Forum Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 21:11:18 -0400 Message-ID: <35815C929B41D2479A224FE098A272270708D47F@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <73C4B529-78A8-49AC-93C7-0CACF40C41FB@cisco.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Liaison from the Broadband Forum Thread-Index: AcmuW+HPjPMghVPERVSUup2ibaxE/wAHOA0A References: <208D3722DBD8FD4C9E9D7075AA826421017BBDCC@GBCWSWIEM004.ad.plc.cwintra.com> <73C4B529-78A8-49AC-93C7-0CACF40C41FB@cisco.com> From: "Alan Kavanagh" To: "Fred Baker" , "IPv6 Operations" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Mar 2009 01:11:20.0132 (UTC) FILETIME=[EFEC5040:01C9AE78] Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9AE78.EF506978 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Just to clarify on the liason from the BBF. The issue is related to the IP-Edge Node/BNG and not the CPE. =20 =20 Alan K ________________________________ From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker Sent: March 25, 2009 1:09 PM To: IPv6 Operations Subject: Fwd: Liaison from the Broadband Forum As I mentioned in the meeting Monday, we re in receipt of a liaison (a letter) from the Broadband Forum. This relates to the work of several working groups, and in ours is primarily related to the CPE draft. The authors of that draft are in direct communication with the Forum and are addressing the issues raised. That said, any opinions on the questions would be good. Begin forwarded message: From: "Young, Gavin" Date: March 22, 2009 1:49:09 PM PDT To: , , , , , , , , Cc: "David Allan" , Subject: Liaison from the Broadband Forum Dear all, =09 Please find attached a liaison from the Broadband Forum. =09 Regards, =09 Gavin Young Technical Committee Chair =09 =09 =09 Gavin Young Chief Architect C&W Access Cable&Wireless=20 Europe, Asia & US Direct Dial: +44 (0) 207 528 3597 Mobile: +44 (0) 7748 937 007 Email: gavin.young@cw.com www.cw.com =20 =09 This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the Cable & Wireless e-mail security system - powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive managed e-mail security service, visit http://www.cw.com/uk/emailprotection/=20 =09 The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not named above as a recipient, you must not read, copy, disclose, forward or otherwise use the information contained in this email. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender (whose contact details are above) immediately by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments without retaining any copies. =09 Cable and Wireless plc=20 Registered in England and Wales.Company Number 238525=20 Registered office: 3rd Floor, 26 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4HQ =09 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9AE78.EF506978 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Just to clarify on the liason from the BBF. The = issue is=20 related to the IP-Edge Node/BNG and not the CPE.
 
 
Alan=20 K

From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org=20 [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred = Baker
Sent:=20 March 25, 2009 1:09 PM
To: IPv6 Operations
Subject: = Fwd:=20 Liaison from the Broadband Forum

As I mentioned in the meeting Monday, we re in receipt of a = liaison=20 (a letter) from the Broadband Forum. This relates to the work of several = working=20 groups, and in ours is primarily related to the CPE draft. The authors = of that=20 draft are in direct communication with the Forum and are addressing the = issues=20 raised. That said, any opinions on the questions would be good.

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Young, = Gavin" <Gavin.Young@cw.com>
Date: March 22, = 2009 1:49:09 PM=20 PDT
To: <fenner@fenron.com>, <christian.vogt@ericsson.com>,=20 <fred.baker@cisco.com>, = <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>, = <dromasca@avaya.com>, <rbonica@juniper.net>, = <rdroms@cisco.com>, <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, = <townsley@cisco.com>
Cc: "David Allan" = <dallan@nortel.com>, <david.j.thorne@bt.com>
Subject: Liaison = from the=20 Broadband Forum

Dear=20 all,

Please find attached a = liaison=20 from the Broadband Forum.

Regards,

Gavin=20 Young

Technical Committee=20 Chair

Gavin=20 Young

Chief = Architect C&W=20 Access

Cable&Wireless =

Europe, Asia &=20 US

Direct Dial: +44 (0) 207 = 528=20 3597

Mobile: +44 = (0) 7748 937=20 007
Email: = gavin.young@cw.com

www.cw.com=20


This = e-mail has=20 been scanned for viruses by the Cable & Wireless e-mail security = system -=20 powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive managed = e-mail=20 security service, visit http://www.cw.com/uk/email= protection/=20

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and = may also=20 be subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the = recipient(s) named=20 above. If you are not named above as a recipient, you must not read, = copy,=20 disclose, forward or otherwise use the information contained in this = email. If=20 you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender = (whose=20 contact details are above) immediately by reply e-mail and delete the = message=20 and any attachments without retaining any copies.

Cable and = Wireless=20 plc
Registered in England and Wales.Company Number 238525 =
Registered=20 office: 3rd Floor, 26 Red Lion Square, London WC1R=20 = 4HQ
= ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9AE78.EF506978-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Thu Mar 26 18:54:12 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0DEF28C0E7 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:54:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.064 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.064 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.170, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 9mwU1obHBQ0w for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:54:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBEA728C0D8 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:54:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Ln1Eq-000LYn-KV for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 01:52:04 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.117] (helo=sj-iport-6.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Ln1El-000LYA-5u for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 01:52:01 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,429,1233532800"; d="scan'208,217";a="275028671" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Mar 2009 01:51:58 +0000 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2R1pu0m026491; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:51:56 -0700 Received: from dhcp-41cd.meeting.ietf.org (sjc-vpn4-356.cisco.com [10.21.81.100]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2R1pmV0022115; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 01:51:56 GMT Cc: "IPv6 Operations" Message-Id: From: Fred Baker To: "Alan Kavanagh" In-Reply-To: <35815C929B41D2479A224FE098A272270708D47F@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-123--34012750 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: Liaison from the Broadband Forum Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:51:48 -0700 References: <208D3722DBD8FD4C9E9D7075AA826421017BBDCC@GBCWSWIEM004.ad.plc.cwintra.com> <73C4B529-78A8-49AC-93C7-0CACF40C41FB@cisco.com> <35815C929B41D2479A224FE098A272270708D47F@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=15160; t=1238118716; x=1238982716; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20Liaison=20from=20the=20Broadband=20Foru m |Sender:=20; bh=4eSCaq+1bGc3PstEPGgPFsJZYgaSktvuj8Sd1nzbH7Y=; b=VbC7QlZeGIeOSMQ/1zo0rFBgib3gOgFKRgabtj2QEpRVWG3dieqAFMErFu 2g0rNueZW00jHT2vPKEilC7qLZkY3J92rRLe2XDcuYj+F3NnpnQE4vpNE8CD j0chqlG2iC; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: --Apple-Mail-123--34012750 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sorry, my error. Bark Stark tells me there is another one coming related to the CPE. On Mar 26, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Alan Kavanagh wrote: > Just to clarify on the liason from the BBF. The issue is related to > the IP-Edge Node/BNG and not the CPE. > > > Alan K > > From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Fred Baker > Sent: March 25, 2009 1:09 PM > To: IPv6 Operations > Subject: Fwd: Liaison from the Broadband Forum > > As I mentioned in the meeting Monday, we re in receipt of a liaison > (a letter) from the Broadband Forum. This relates to the work of > several working groups, and in ours is primarily related to the CPE > draft. The authors of that draft are in direct communication with > the Forum and are addressing the issues raised. That said, any > opinions on the questions would be good. > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: "Young, Gavin" >> Date: March 22, 2009 1:49:09 PM PDT >> To: , , > >, , , >> , , , > > >> Cc: "David Allan" , >> Subject: Liaison from the Broadband Forum >> >> Dear all, >> Please find attached a liaison from the Broadband Forum. >> Regards, >> Gavin Young >> Technical Committee Chair >> Gavin Young >> Chief Architect C&W Access >> Cable&Wireless >> Europe, Asia & US >> Direct Dial: +44 (0) 207 528 3597 >> Mobile: +44 (0) 7748 937 007 >> Email: gavin.young@cw.com >> www.cw.com >> >> This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the Cable & Wireless e- >> mail security system - powered by MessageLabs. For more information >> on a proactive managed e-mail security service, visit http://www.cw.com/uk/emailprotection/ >> >> The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may >> also be subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the >> recipient(s) named above. If you are not named above as a >> recipient, you must not read, copy, disclose, forward or otherwise >> use the information contained in this email. If you have received >> this e-mail in error, please notify the sender (whose contact >> details are above) immediately by reply e-mail and delete the >> message and any attachments without retaining any copies. >> >> Cable and Wireless plc >> Registered in England and Wales.Company Number 238525 >> Registered office: 3rd Floor, 26 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4HQ --Apple-Mail-123--34012750 Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sorry, my error. Bark Stark = tells me there is another one coming related to the = CPE.

On Mar 26, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Alan Kavanagh = wrote:

Just to clarify on the liason from the BBF. = The issue is related to the IP-Edge Node/BNG and not the = CPE.
 
 
Alan K

=
From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org = [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker
Sent: March 25, 2009 1:09 = PM
To: IPv6 Operations
Subject: Fwd: Liaison from = the Broadband Forum

As I mentioned in = the meeting Monday, we re in receipt of a liaison (a letter) from the = Broadband Forum. This relates to the work of several working groups, and = in ours is primarily related to the CPE draft. The authors of that draft = are in direct communication with the Forum and are addressing the issues = raised. That said, any opinions on the questions would be good.
=

Begin forwarded message:

Dear all,

Please find attached a liaison from the Broadband = Forum.

Regards,

Gavin = Young

Technical Committee Chair

=

Gavin = Young

Chief Architect C&W = Access

Cable&Wireless =

Europe, Asia & = US

Direct Dial: +44 (0) 207 528 = 3597

Mobile: +44 (0) 7748 937 = 007
Email: gavin.young@cw.com

www.cw.com =


This = e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the Cable & Wireless e-mail = security system - powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a = proactive managed e-mail security service, visit http://www.cw.com/uk/emailp= rotection/

The information contained in this e-mail is = confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. It is = intended only for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not named = above as a recipient, you must not read, copy, disclose, forward or = otherwise use the information contained in this email. If you have = received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender (whose contact = details are above) immediately by reply e-mail and delete the message = and any attachments without retaining any copies.

Cable and = Wireless plc
Registered in England and Wales.Company Number 238525 =
Registered office: 3rd Floor, 26 Red Lion Square, London WC1R = 4HQ

= --Apple-Mail-123--34012750-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 27 06:27:11 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C9903A6A40 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 06:27:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.639 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.639 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.255, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 3PzcRPyHd5Wm for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 06:27:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ACBF3A6C58 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 06:27:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnC1K-000Bp3-5g for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:22:50 +0000 Received: from [216.82.241.147] (helo=mail146.messagelabs.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnC13-000BlU-7b for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:22:38 +0000 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: bs7652@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-4.tower-146.messagelabs.com!1238160149!12996003!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.0.0; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.53] Received: (qmail 15196 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2009 13:22:30 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.53) by server-4.tower-146.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 27 Mar 2009 13:22:30 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n2RDMTAk010974; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:22:30 -0400 Received: from 01GAF5142010621.AD.BLS.COM (01GAF5142010621.ad.bls.com [139.76.131.79]) by mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with SMTP id n2RDMOxT010904; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:22:25 -0400 Received: from 01NC27689010626.AD.BLS.COM ([90.144.44.201]) by 01GAF5142010621.AD.BLS.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:22:24 -0400 Received: from 01NC27689010641.AD.BLS.COM ([90.144.44.103]) by 01NC27689010626.AD.BLS.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:22:24 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.3168 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9AEDF.108C3559" Subject: RE: Liaison from the Broadband Forum Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:22:17 -0400 Message-ID: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0D880DD9@crexc41p> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Liaison from the Broadband Forum thread-index: AcmugFnJ5eVhR6hITiiRkTng3Bb/gAAXjSXQ References: <208D3722DBD8FD4C9E9D7075AA826421017BBDCC@GBCWSWIEM004.ad.plc.cwintra.com> <73C4B529-78A8-49AC-93C7-0CACF40C41FB@cisco.com> <35815C929B41D2479A224FE098A272270708D47F@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> From: "Stark, Barbara" To: "Fred Baker" , "Alan Kavanagh" CC: "IPv6 Operations" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Mar 2009 13:22:24.0144 (UTC) FILETIME=[10E96100:01C9AEDF] Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9AEDF.108C3559 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I mentioned that I'm in the process of drafting IPv6 Residential Gateway requirements for BBF, and expect to liaise this draft with IETF (v6ops), once it's ready. It'll be a few weeks, yet, though, before I have the first draft out to BBF. Thanks, Barbara =20 From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 9:52 PM To: Alan Kavanagh Cc: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: Liaison from the Broadband Forum =20 Sorry, my error. Bark Stark tells me there is another one coming related to the CPE. =20 On Mar 26, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Alan Kavanagh wrote: Just to clarify on the liason from the BBF. The issue is related to the IP-Edge Node/BNG and not the CPE. =20 =20 Alan K =20 ________________________________ From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker Sent: March 25, 2009 1:09 PM To: IPv6 Operations Subject: Fwd: Liaison from the Broadband Forum As I mentioned in the meeting Monday, we re in receipt of a liaison (a letter) from the Broadband Forum. This relates to the work of several working groups, and in ours is primarily related to the CPE draft. The authors of that draft are in direct communication with the Forum and are addressing the issues raised. That said, any opinions on the questions would be good. =20 Begin forwarded message: From: "Young, Gavin" Date: March 22, 2009 1:49:09 PM PDT To: , , , , , , , , Cc: "David Allan" , Subject: Liaison from the Broadband Forum =20 Dear all, Please find attached a liaison from the Broadband Forum. Regards, Gavin Young Technical Committee Chair Gavin Young Chief Architect C&W Access Cable&Wireless=20 Europe, Asia & US Direct Dial: +44 (0) 207 528 3597 Mobile: +44 (0) 7748 937 007 Email: gavin.young@cw.com www.cw.com =20 This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the Cable & Wireless e-mail security system - powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive managed e-mail security service, visit http://www.cw.com/uk/emailprotection/=20 The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not named above as a recipient, you must not read, copy, disclose, forward or otherwise use the information contained in this email. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender (whose contact details are above) immediately by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments without retaining any copies. Cable and Wireless plc=20 Registered in England and Wales.Company Number 238525=20 Registered office: 3rd Floor, 26 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4HQ =20 ***** The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to = which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or = privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other = use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by = persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If = you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the = material from all computers. GA621 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9AEDF.108C3559 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I mentioned that I’m in the process of drafting = IPv6 Residential Gateway requirements for BBF, and expect to liaise this = draft with IETF (v6ops), once it’s ready. It’ll be a few weeks, yet, = though, before I have the first draft out to BBF. Thanks,

Barbara

 

From:= owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Fred Baker
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 9:52 PM
To: Alan Kavanagh
Cc: IPv6 Operations
Subject: Re: Liaison from the Broadband = Forum

 

Sorry, my error. Bark Stark tells me there is = another one coming related to the CPE.

 

On Mar 26, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Alan Kavanagh = wrote:



Just to clarify on the liason from the BBF. The issue is = related to the IP-Edge Node/BNG and not the CPE.

 

 

Alan K

 

From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org<= /a>] On Behalf Of Fred Baker
Sent: March 25, 2009 1:09 PM
To: IPv6 Operations
Subject: Fwd: Liaison from the Broadband = Forum

As I mentioned in the meeting Monday, we re in = receipt of a liaison (a letter) from the Broadband Forum. This relates to the work of several working groups, and in ours is primarily related to the CPE = draft. The authors of that draft are in direct communication with the Forum and are addressing the issues raised. That said, any opinions on the questions = would be good.

 

Begin forwarded message:

Dear all,

Please find attached a liaison from the Broadband Forum.

Regards,

Gavin Young

Technical Committee Chair

Gavin = Young

Chief Architect C&W = Access

Cable&Wir= eless

Europe, Asia & = US

Direct Dial: +44 (0) 207 528 3597

Mobile: +44 (0) 7748 937 007
Email: gavin.young@cw.com

www.cw.com


This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the Cable & Wireless = e-mail security system - powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a = proactive managed e-mail security service, visit http://www.cw.com/uk/email= protection/

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the recipient(s) = named above. If you are not named above as a recipient, you must not read, = copy, disclose, forward or otherwise use the information contained in this = email. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender (whose = contact details are above) immediately by reply e-mail and delete the message = and any attachments without retaining any copies.

Cable and Wireless plc
Registered in England and Wales.Company Number 238525
Registered office: 3rd Floor, 26 Red Lion Square, London WC1R = 4HQ

 

*****

The information = transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is = addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged = material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or = taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or = entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you = received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the = material from all computers. GA621

 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9AEDF.108C3559-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 27 07:41:14 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 137533A6824 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 07:41:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.71 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.71 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.215, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 5rzfK87KIVXi for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 07:41:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 108DB3A6A71 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 07:41:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnDD2-000K4t-Cs for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:39:00 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.71] (helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnDCx-000K4D-Ei for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:38:57 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,432,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="147545500" Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Mar 2009 14:38:54 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2REcsWh019855; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:38:54 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2REcspX001490; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:38:54 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.118]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:38:54 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:38:53 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <2bbba3c10903261414l315aa210s7ac1cc050d113d07@mail.gmail.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: AcmuV+aVGnCe/myDRHa5CPfIVHbIlQAkXc6A References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> <9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com> <925FA39D-42FC-4E3B-99C7-FA6E0DC7E0B7@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903261414l315aa210s7ac1cc050d113d07@mail.gmail.com> From: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" To: "Ole Troan" Cc: , "james woodyatt" , "Hemant Singh (shemant)" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Mar 2009 14:38:54.0173 (UTC) FILETIME=[C0C838D0:01C9AEE9] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=396; t=1238164734; x=1239028734; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=wbeebee@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Wes=20Beebee=20(wbeebee)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20comm ents |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Ole=20Troan=22=20; bh=aoHYO+b4Fl/gUMfXJYx7zBuUVFJxwYwSfZmesWOLjGE=; b=JhYdneDYL91Ze9kcN8ly3tuOTOngsmjsUgosPmKNUaXEKcMXQB8VEM40/N yKm0mgMwmdw+EeqOiTpXdQsLleHw2FD1OSioctuZFAij4HtzV1lNGP6PPILE 049ZdmwIcj; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=wbeebee@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: > I think the model is to have a switch behind the CM so you wouldn't need to congest the upstream. And I presume that switch also supports MLD so that the MAC filters don't let multicast streaming video through to the service provider? In the case that a low-end switch does not support MLD, it's still a better practice to have the CPE Router be the first hop into the home. - Wes From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 27 08:49:50 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D85F13A6A6E for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 08:49:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.829 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.829 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.535, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 hriJYDxDmhnB for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 08:49:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 781863A676A for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 08:49:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnEHC-0001uK-Sg for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:47:22 +0000 Received: from [198.24.6.3] (helo=imr2.ericy.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnEGz-0001sS-PL for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:47:18 +0000 Received: from eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw751.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.51]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n2RFl01n031052; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:47:00 -0500 Received: from ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se ([142.133.1.72]) by eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:46:50 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9AEF3.3C2862D3" Subject: RE: Liaison from the Broadband Forum Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:46:46 -0400 Message-ID: <35815C929B41D2479A224FE098A272270708D82D@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0D880DD9@crexc41p> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Liaison from the Broadband Forum Thread-Index: AcmugFnJ5eVhR6hITiiRkTng3Bb/gAAXjSXQAATd15A= References: <208D3722DBD8FD4C9E9D7075AA826421017BBDCC@GBCWSWIEM004.ad.plc.cwintra.com> <73C4B529-78A8-49AC-93C7-0CACF40C41FB@cisco.com> <35815C929B41D2479A224FE098A272270708D47F@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0D880DD9@crexc41p> From: "Alan Kavanagh" To: "Stark, Barbara" , "Fred Baker" Cc: "IPv6 Operations" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Mar 2009 15:46:50.0667 (UTC) FILETIME=[3E8FD7B0:01C9AEF3] Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9AEF3.3C2862D3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable HI Barbara =20 Im hoping you will first present it in BBF so we can all agree that on what issues you have found before liaising this with v6ops. =20 BR Alan K ________________________________ From: Stark, Barbara [mailto:bs7652@att.com]=20 Sent: March 27, 2009 9:22 AM To: Fred Baker; Alan Kavanagh Cc: IPv6 Operations Subject: RE: Liaison from the Broadband Forum I mentioned that I'm in the process of drafting IPv6 Residential Gateway requirements for BBF, and expect to liaise this draft with IETF (v6ops), once it's ready. It'll be a few weeks, yet, though, before I have the first draft out to BBF. Thanks, Barbara =20 From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 9:52 PM To: Alan Kavanagh Cc: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: Liaison from the Broadband Forum =20 Sorry, my error. Bark Stark tells me there is another one coming related to the CPE. =20 On Mar 26, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Alan Kavanagh wrote: Just to clarify on the liason from the BBF. The issue is related to the IP-Edge Node/BNG and not the CPE. =20 =20 Alan K =20 ________________________________ From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker Sent: March 25, 2009 1:09 PM To: IPv6 Operations Subject: Fwd: Liaison from the Broadband Forum As I mentioned in the meeting Monday, we re in receipt of a liaison (a letter) from the Broadband Forum. This relates to the work of several working groups, and in ours is primarily related to the CPE draft. The authors of that draft are in direct communication with the Forum and are addressing the issues raised. That said, any opinions on the questions would be good. =20 Begin forwarded message: From: "Young, Gavin" Date: March 22, 2009 1:49:09 PM PDT To: , , , , , , , , Cc: "David Allan" , Subject: Liaison from the Broadband Forum =20 Dear all, Please find attached a liaison from the Broadband Forum. Regards, Gavin Young Technical Committee Chair Gavin Young Chief Architect C&W Access Cable&Wireless=20 Europe, Asia & US Direct Dial: +44 (0) 207 528 3597 Mobile: +44 (0) 7748 937 007 Email: gavin.young@cw.com www.cw.com =20 This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the Cable & Wireless e-mail security system - powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive managed e-mail security service, visit http://www.cw.com/uk/emailprotection/=20 The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not named above as a recipient, you must not read, copy, disclose, forward or otherwise use the information contained in this email. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender (whose contact details are above) immediately by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments without retaining any copies. Cable and Wireless plc=20 Registered in England and Wales.Company Number 238525=20 Registered office: 3rd Floor, 26 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4HQ =20 ***** The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. GA621 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9AEF3.3C2862D3 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
HI Barbara
 
Im hoping you will first present it in BBF so = we can all=20 agree that on what issues you have found before liaising this with=20 v6ops.
 
BR
Alan K

From: Stark, Barbara = [mailto:bs7652@att.com]=20
Sent: March 27, 2009 9:22 AM
To: Fred Baker; Alan=20 Kavanagh
Cc: IPv6 Operations
Subject: RE: Liaison = from the=20 Broadband Forum

I=20 mentioned that I’m in the process of drafting IPv6 Residential = Gateway=20 requirements for BBF, and expect to liaise this draft with IETF (v6ops), = once=20 it’s ready. It’ll be a few weeks, yet, though, before I have = the first draft out=20 to BBF. Thanks,

Barbara

 

From:=20 owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf = Of=20 Fred Baker
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 9:52 = PM
To:=20 Alan Kavanagh
Cc: IPv6 Operations
Subject: Re: = Liaison from=20 the Broadband Forum

 

Sorry, my error. Bark Stark tells me there is = another one=20 coming related to the CPE.

 

On Mar 26, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Alan Kavanagh=20 wrote:



Just to=20 clarify on the liason from the BBF. The issue is related to the IP-Edge = Node/BNG=20 and not the CPE.

 

 

Alan=20 K

 

From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org = [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org<= /A>]=20 On Behalf Of Fred Baker
Sent: March 25, 2009 1:09=20 PM
To: IPv6 Operations
Subject: Fwd: Liaison from = the=20 Broadband Forum

As I mentioned in the meeting Monday, we re in = receipt of a=20 liaison (a letter) from the Broadband Forum. This relates to the work of = several=20 working groups, and in ours is primarily related to the CPE draft. The = authors=20 of that draft are in direct communication with the Forum and are = addressing the=20 issues raised. That said, any opinions on the questions would be=20 good.

 

Begin forwarded message:



From:=20 "Young, = Gavin"=20 <Gavin.Young@cw.com>=

Date:=20 March = 22, 2009=20 1:49:09 PM PDT

To:=20 <fenner@fenron.com>, <christian.vogt@ericsson.com>,=20 <fred.baker@cisco.com>, = <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>, <dromasca@avaya.com>, <rbonica@juniper.net>, <rdroms@cisco.com>, <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, = <townsley@cisco.com>=

Cc:=20 "David = Allan"=20 <dallan@nortel.com>, = <david.j.thorne@bt.com>

Subject:=20 Liaison = from the=20 Broadband Forum

 

Dear=20 all,

Please find = attached=20 a liaison from the Broadband Forum.

Regards,

Gavin=20 Young

Technical = Committee=20 Chair

Gavin = Young

Chief Architect C&W=20 Access

Cable&Wireless=20

Europe, Asia & = US

Direct Dial: +44 (0) 207 528=20 3597

Mobile: +44 (0) 7748 937 = 007
Email: gavin.young@cw.com

www.cw.com=20


This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the = Cable=20 & Wireless e-mail security system - powered by MessageLabs. For more = information on a proactive managed e-mail security service, visit http://www.cw.com/uk/email= protection/=20

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may = also be=20 subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the recipient(s) = named=20 above. If you are not named above as a recipient, you must not read, = copy,=20 disclose, forward or otherwise use the information contained in this = email. If=20 you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender (whose = contact=20 details are above) immediately by reply e-mail and delete the message = and any=20 attachments without retaining any copies.

Cable and Wireless plc=20
Registered in England and Wales.Company Number 238525
Registered = office:=20 3rd Floor, 26 Red Lion Square, London WC1R=20 4HQ

 

*****

The information = transmitted is=20 intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may = contain=20 confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review,=20 retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action = in=20 reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the = intended=20 recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact = the=20 sender and delete the material from all computers.=20 GA621

 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9AEF3.3C2862D3-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 27 09:08:01 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 259B33A6C5F for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:08:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.358 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.358 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.064, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_21=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 lfc2sIYbZK7x for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:07:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04C9B3A6824 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:07:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnEaQ-0004Jv-81 for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:07:14 +0000 Received: from [216.82.250.147] (helo=mail129.messagelabs.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnEaH-0004It-8d for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:07:09 +0000 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: bs7652@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-9.tower-129.messagelabs.com!1238170021!29066301!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.0.0; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.53] Received: (qmail 22993 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2009 16:07:02 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.53) by server-9.tower-129.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 27 Mar 2009 16:07:02 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n2RG70WE013665; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:07:01 -0400 Received: from 01GAF5142010621.AD.BLS.COM (01GAF5142010621.ad.bls.com [139.76.131.79]) by mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with SMTP id n2RG6tce013548; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:06:56 -0400 Received: from 01NC27689010625.AD.BLS.COM ([90.144.44.200]) by 01GAF5142010621.AD.BLS.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:06:55 -0400 Received: from 01NC27689010641.AD.BLS.COM ([90.144.44.103]) by 01NC27689010625.AD.BLS.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:06:55 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.3168 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9AEF6.0C64DA88" Subject: RE: Liaison from the Broadband Forum Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:06:49 -0400 Message-ID: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0D880EB8@crexc41p> In-Reply-To: <35815C929B41D2479A224FE098A272270708D82D@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Liaison from the Broadband Forum thread-index: AcmugFnJ5eVhR6hITiiRkTng3Bb/gAAXjSXQAATd15AAALWRoA== References: <208D3722DBD8FD4C9E9D7075AA826421017BBDCC@GBCWSWIEM004.ad.plc.cwintra.com> <73C4B529-78A8-49AC-93C7-0CACF40C41FB@cisco.com> <35815C929B41D2479A224FE098A272270708D47F@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0D880DD9@crexc41p> <35815C929B41D2479A224FE098A272270708D82D@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> From: "Stark, Barbara" To: "Alan Kavanagh" , "Fred Baker" CC: "IPv6 Operations" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Mar 2009 16:06:55.0326 (UTC) FILETIME=[0C9837E0:01C9AEF6] Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9AEF6.0C64DA88 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Well, yeah! I can't liaise anything from BBF without presenting it to BBF first and getting agreement that it's ok to liaise. That's standard process. I will properly follow all BBF procedures. Barbara =20 From: Alan Kavanagh [mailto:alan.kavanagh@ericsson.com]=20 Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 11:47 AM To: Stark, Barbara; Fred Baker Cc: IPv6 Operations Subject: RE: Liaison from the Broadband Forum =20 HI Barbara =20 Im hoping you will first present it in BBF so we can all agree that on what issues you have found before liaising this with v6ops. =20 BR Alan K =20 ________________________________ From: Stark, Barbara [mailto:bs7652@att.com]=20 Sent: March 27, 2009 9:22 AM To: Fred Baker; Alan Kavanagh Cc: IPv6 Operations Subject: RE: Liaison from the Broadband Forum I mentioned that I'm in the process of drafting IPv6 Residential Gateway requirements for BBF, and expect to liaise this draft with IETF (v6ops), once it's ready. It'll be a few weeks, yet, though, before I have the first draft out to BBF. Thanks, Barbara =20 From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 9:52 PM To: Alan Kavanagh Cc: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: Liaison from the Broadband Forum =20 Sorry, my error. Bark Stark tells me there is another one coming related to the CPE. =20 On Mar 26, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Alan Kavanagh wrote: =20 Just to clarify on the liason from the BBF. The issue is related to the IP-Edge Node/BNG and not the CPE. =20 =20 Alan K =20 ________________________________ From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker Sent: March 25, 2009 1:09 PM To: IPv6 Operations Subject: Fwd: Liaison from the Broadband Forum As I mentioned in the meeting Monday, we re in receipt of a liaison (a letter) from the Broadband Forum. This relates to the work of several working groups, and in ours is primarily related to the CPE draft. The authors of that draft are in direct communication with the Forum and are addressing the issues raised. That said, any opinions on the questions would be good. =20 Begin forwarded message: =20 From: "Young, Gavin" Date: March 22, 2009 1:49:09 PM PDT To: , , , , , , , , Cc: "David Allan" , Subject: Liaison from the Broadband Forum =20 Dear all, Please find attached a liaison from the Broadband Forum. Regards, Gavin Young Technical Committee Chair Gavin Young Chief Architect C&W Access Cable&Wireless=20 Europe, Asia & US Direct Dial: +44 (0) 207 528 3597 Mobile: +44 (0) 7748 937 007 Email: gavin.young@cw.com www.cw.com =20 This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the Cable & Wireless e-mail security system - powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive managed e-mail security service, visit http://www.cw.com/uk/emailprotection/=20 The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not named above as a recipient, you must not read, copy, disclose, forward or otherwise use the information contained in this email. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender (whose contact details are above) immediately by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments without retaining any copies. Cable and Wireless plc=20 Registered in England and Wales.Company Number 238525=20 Registered office: 3rd Floor, 26 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4HQ =20 ***** The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. GA621 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9AEF6.0C64DA88 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Well, yeah! I can’t liaise anything from BBF = without presenting it to BBF first and getting agreement that it’s ok to = liaise. That’s standard process. I will properly follow all BBF = procedures.

Barbara

 

From:= Alan = Kavanagh [mailto:alan.kavanagh@ericsson.com]
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 11:47 AM
To: Stark, Barbara; Fred Baker
Cc: IPv6 Operations
Subject: RE: Liaison from the Broadband = Forum

 

HI Barbara

 

Im hoping you will first present it in BBF so we can all = agree that on what issues you have found before liaising this with = v6ops.

 

BR

Alan K

 

From: Stark, Barbara = [mailto:bs7652@att.com]
Sent: March 27, 2009 9:22 AM
To: Fred Baker; Alan Kavanagh
Cc: IPv6 Operations
Subject: RE: Liaison from the Broadband = Forum

I mentioned that I’m in the process of drafting = IPv6 Residential Gateway requirements for BBF, and expect to liaise this = draft with IETF (v6ops), once it’s ready. It’ll be a few weeks, yet, = though, before I have the first draft out to BBF. Thanks,

Barbara

 

From:= owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Fred Baker
Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 9:52 PM
To: Alan Kavanagh
Cc: IPv6 Operations
Subject: Re: Liaison from the Broadband = Forum

 

Sorry, my error. Bark Stark tells me there is = another one coming related to the CPE.

 

On Mar 26, 2009, at 6:11 PM, Alan Kavanagh = wrote:

 

Just to clarify on the liason from the BBF. The issue is = related to the IP-Edge Node/BNG and not the CPE.

 

 

Alan K

 

From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org<= /a>] On Behalf Of Fred Baker
Sent: March 25, 2009 1:09 PM
To: IPv6 Operations
Subject: Fwd: Liaison from the Broadband = Forum

As I mentioned in the meeting Monday, we re in = receipt of a liaison (a letter) from the Broadband Forum. This relates to the work of several working groups, and in ours is primarily related to the CPE = draft. The authors of that draft are in direct communication with the Forum and are addressing the issues raised. That said, any opinions on the questions = would be good.

 

Begin forwarded message:

 

Dear all,

Please find attached a liaison from the Broadband Forum.

Regards,

Gavin Young

Technical Committee Chair

Gavin = Young

Chief Architect C&W = Access

Cable&Wir= eless

Europe, Asia & = US

Direct Dial: +44 (0) 207 528 3597

Mobile: +44 (0) 7748 937 007
Email: gavin.young@cw.com

www.cw.com


This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by the Cable & Wireless = e-mail security system - powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a = proactive managed e-mail security service, visit http://www.cw.com/uk/email= protection/

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the recipient(s) = named above. If you are not named above as a recipient, you must not read, = copy, disclose, forward or otherwise use the information contained in this = email. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender (whose = contact details are above) immediately by reply e-mail and delete the message = and any attachments without retaining any copies.

Cable and Wireless plc
Registered in England and Wales.Company Number 238525
Registered office: 3rd Floor, 26 Red Lion Square, London WC1R = 4HQ

 

= *****<= o:p>

= The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to = which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or = privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or = taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities = other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in = error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. = GA621<= o:p>

*****

The information = transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is = addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged = material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or = taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or = entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you = received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the = material from all computers. GA621

 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9AEF6.0C64DA88-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 27 09:10:25 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB1893A6C6D for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:10:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.736 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.736 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.241, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 tzmQSbE+ZE6V for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:10:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5AD13A6C62 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:10:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnEdq-0004kb-MC for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:10:46 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.70] (helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnEdk-0004jb-P0 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:10:43 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,432,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="162731074" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Mar 2009 16:10:40 +0000 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2RGAedr021641; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:10:40 -0700 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2RGAdwq011056; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:10:40 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.40]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:10:39 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:10:38 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <49CBB0C9.40908@gmail.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: AcmuMhQWasfrKu4nSo6HgZtIy+WtbwAw5UVQ References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <95F8ED8E-261B-437C-8063-223D345C364B@apple.com> <943C3A80-979F-4289-BA20-C17D20861111@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> <6161A3E1-DCD1-467F-9AD5-0A15821413A2@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> <9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com> <925FA39D-42FC-4E3B-99C7-FA6E0DC7E0B7@apple.com> < 49CBB0C9 .40908@gmail.com> From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" To: "Brian E Carpenter" Cc: "james woodyatt" , "IPv6 Operations" , "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Mar 2009 16:10:39.0486 (UTC) FILETIME=[923451E0:01C9AEF6] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1318; t=1238170240; x=1239034240; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20comm ents |Sender:=20; bh=/bGbzB8vvVkQZ+hl7YihO5hqR44MPZ30AR/daexKs7g=; b=t4nkYNdlmYgg3xy9swvFUAK22ikicfydtNw6sJlHXmc1lCJATQQYQJ+Z00 smzOXAt13i63E3E7s87HU8qYF9thRu94/v4DSnJg7W0zpnuhsHzX9cx7rJR6 hikuwODQQi; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=shemant@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: QnJhaW4gYW5kIG90aGVycywNCg0KPklmIHRoZSBicm9hZGJhbmQgZm9ydW0gcGVvcGxlIGRvbid0 IHdhbnQgYSB1c2UgY2FzZSB3aXRoIGRpcmVjdCBDUEUtQ1BFDQo+Y29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbiwgdGhh dCdzIHRoZWlyIGNob2ljZSwgYnV0IHdlIHNob3VsZG4ndCBhcnRpZmljaWFsbHkNCj5yZXN0cmlj dCB0aGlzIGluIHRoZSBiYXNlIHNwZWMgZm9yIENQRXMsIElNSE8uIFdlIHdyaXRlIElQdjYgYmFz aWMNCj5zdGFuZGFyZHM7IHRoZXkgYXBwbHkgdGhlbSB0byB0aGVpciB1c2UgY2FzZXMuDQoNCkZv ciBwYXN0IHR3byBkYXlzIG9yIHNvLCB3ZSBjb3VsZG4ndCB1bmRlcnN0YW5kIHdoYXQgc2NlbmFy aW8gd2FzIEphbWVzIHRhbGtpbmcgYWJvdXQuICBJIGFuZCBtb3JlIGZvbGtzIHRob3VnaHQgb25l IGhvbWUgdG8gYW5vdGhlciBob21lIGNvbW11bmljYXRpb25zIHdlcmUgYmVpbmcgZGlzY3Vzc2Vk IGJ1dCBhY3R1YWxseSB3aGF0IEphbWVzIHdhcyBsb29raW5nIGF0IHdhcyBhIHNpbmdsZSBob21l IGFuZCB0aGlzIGhvbWUncyBuZXR3b3JraW5nLiAgV2UgYWxzbyBoYWQgYSBkaXNjb25uZWN0IHdp dGggSmFtZXMgYmVjYXVzZSBpdCB3YXNuJ3QgdG9sZCB0byB1cyB0aGF0IHRoZXJlIHdhcyBhIGh1 YiBzaXR0aW5nIGJlaGluZCB0aGUgYnJvYWRiYW5kIG1vZGVtIGFuZCB0aGVuIGEgQ1BFIFJ0ciBp cyBiZWhpbmQgdGhlIGh1Yi4gIFdlIGFzc3VtZWQgdGhlIENQRSBSdHIgd2FzIGRpcmVjdGx5IGNv bm5lY3RlZCB0byB0aGUgYnJvYWRiYW5kIG1vZGVtLiBOb3cgdGhhdCBhbGwgdGhpbmdzIGFyZSBj bGFyaWZpZWQgYW5kIHdlIGtub3cgaXQncyBvbmUgc2luZ2xlIGhvbWUgYmVpbmcgZGlzY3Vzc2Vk LCB3ZSB3aWxsIGxvb2sgaW50byBjb21tb24gc2NlbmFyaW9zIHRoYXQgU2VydmljZSBQcm92aWRl cnMgaGF2ZSBpbiBtaW5kIGFuZCB0YWtlIGl0IGZyb20gdGhlcmUuDQoNCkhlbWFudA0K From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 27 09:25:59 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BEA128C121 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:25:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.065 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.065 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.570, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 9vXNyLR+dINY for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:25:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC0A33A67E5 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:25:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnErB-0006Pb-Qt for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:24:33 +0000 Received: from [17.254.13.22] (helo=mail-out3.apple.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnEr4-0006Ny-8t for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:24:30 +0000 Received: from relay10.apple.com (relay10.apple.com [17.128.113.47]) by mail-out3.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D2E8594E8CE for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:24:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay10.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay10.apple.com (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with ESMTP id 6080228058 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:24:15 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 1180712f-ad974bb0000012d3-d0-49ccfdaf1985 Received: from [17.151.79.81] (unknown [17.151.79.81]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay10.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id 3A81D28055 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:24:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: From: james woodyatt To: IPv6 Operations In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:24:14 -0700 References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> <9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com> <925FA39D-42FC-4E3B-99C7-FA6E0DC7E0B7@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903261414l315aa210s7ac1cc050d113d07@mail.gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Mar 27, 2009, at 07:38, Wes Beebee (wbeebee) wrote: > > In the case that a low-end switch does not support MLD, it's still a > better practice to have the CPE Router be the first hop into the home. Yes, but most people setting up consumer gear in their home do not read IETF Best Current Practices RFCs before trying to plug the cables into the jacks on the sides of their boxes where the plugs more or less fit without hammering on them with whatever hard object they find at hand. Some vendors of consumer gear seem to feel the need to make the process of connecting their various appliances together to comprise a functioning network into a university dissertation defense. I think the more successful ones take a more subtle approach: they try very hard to make it as difficult as possible to connect devices together into a network that doesn't work. When the links between the nodes are all CAT-5 cables with RJ-45 plugs on each end, that problem is non- trivial and shouldn't be hand-waved away as not worthy of attention. -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, communications engineering From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 27 09:28:23 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E2423A6C6D for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:28:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.728 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.728 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.233, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 aYdsvK1qakPq for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:28:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38C2C3A6BB4 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:28:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnEuo-0006sV-63 for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:28:18 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.71] (helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnEui-0006rV-9E for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:28:14 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,432,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="147602169" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Mar 2009 16:28:04 +0000 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2RGS45i020742; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 09:28:04 -0700 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2RGS1YI000398; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:28:04 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.40]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:28:03 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:28:02 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0D880CA8@crexc41p> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: Acmtn8NPb/dWspXYRnODFO9GkKezLwAgXPQwAAiNR8AALNkA8A== References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <0DD150BF-77BC-4527-BD35-9202F94496E0@apple.com> <95F8ED8E-261B-437C-8063-223D345C364B@apple.com> <943C3A80-979F-4289-BA20-C17D20861111@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> <6161A3E1-DCD1-467F-9AD5-0A15821413A2@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> <9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com> <925FA39D-42FC-4E3B-99C7-FA6E0DC7E0B7@apple.com> <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0D880CA8@crexc41p> From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" To: "Stark, Barbara" , "james woodyatt" , "IPv6 Operations" Cc: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Mar 2009 16:28:03.0705 (UTC) FILETIME=[009B7E90:01C9AEF9] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=4143; t=1238171284; x=1239035284; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20comm ents |Sender:=20; bh=JMkw9jC1LEpymuqtfKM0qnlAfnFp7jDlrVDDTskNW4M=; b=P1Z64jcxtaI4Iof375iE/Zr4kP/7gtVWmumDZDiMsrV5vMixm9gqZ7Cy4L /k+cxzaoPsOmCLd3+FWaTApy+GeK1oct/p7bNhzyN471fVdKpxw1vfC0FUUY bZcCcUQY5u; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=shemant@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Barbara, With your scenarios below, may I ask what are the things that the SPs currently don't do well with IPv4? I see one problem mentioned - static routes. What are other problems? Also, what node are you talking about when you say "static routes in routing table"? The host or the home router? I think you mean host, but still it good to make such things clear. If we get a list of all things that SP currently don't do well, we can analyze the problems and see what we can do. The scenarios you have shown below are mostly already described in section 5 of RFC 4191. That may lead one to think, RFC 4191 is a good match for such scenarios and the scenarios' problems, but note one key feature of RFC 4191. A SP or a home user still has to configure the routing information on the CPE router(s) before the routing is propagated to hosts in the home. If provisioning automation was an expectation in IPv6 over IPv4, RFC 4191 does not buy one that. That is a separate orthogonal problem and SPs have to prioritize it over other problems. IMHO, more important problems are to help host perform correct data forwarding in presence of multiple routes available in the home. =20 Hemant -----Original Message----- From: Stark, Barbara [mailto:bs7652@att.com]=20 Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 3:38 PM To: Hemant Singh (shemant); james woodyatt; IPv6 Operations Cc: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments > I think we have to let the Broadband forum > complete their IPv6 standards and then depending upon what they do, we > can revisit this RFC 4191 question. =20 The capabilities described in RFC 4191 are certainly something the BBF is looking at, and it would be interesting to hear IETF thoughts on the cases that it might handle.=20 Here are some possible scenarios: (1) CPE Router has multiple WAN connections. Let's say one is a "default" connection that goes to the Internet, while the other is a connection to a walled garden, or a corporate network, or such. The CPE router gets prefixes delegated from each, and makes those prefixes available on its LAN. Is it appropriate / useful for the secondary network to use RFC 4191 to state which prefixes are behind it? In this case, the CPE router would need to put that information in its routing table. Should the CPE Router also use RFC 4191 to tell devices on its LAN that it supports "default" routes plus these secondary prefixes? (2) CPE Router has a wired WAN connection and a backup wireless WAN connection. Both support "default" connectivity. RFC 4191 could be used by the wireless connection to state that it's less preferred. A better solution would probably be to just configure the CPE router with that knowledge. The wireless network isn't the right place to house the knowledge of whether or not it's preferred. I don't think RFC 4191 would be used well here, but it's something to think about. (3) The home has multiple connections through multiple routers. Perhaps one of these routers is like the router in (1) above, while another router also supplies a "default" connection, and yet a 3rd supplies a connection to a walled garden service (maybe it does this by tunneling over one of the other connections -- if so, this should be invisible to the hosts in the LAN). Each router advertises prefix(es) to the LAN. It makes sense for the router to also advertise which prefixes it can route, especially the walled garden prefixes, which may not be accessible through any other connection. RIPng (or other protocols like it) doesn't really seem to be the right answer here. As mentioned in the CPE Router draft, it has scalability concerns in the access network. And it seems kind of weird in the LAN. But using RFC 4191 to supply route info in the RA would be pretty easy. This route info is fairly static. By the way -- these are all real scenarios. People and service providers do these things. They just don't always do them well, today. (1) is particularly common in IPv4, and is handled through static routing table entries. Barbara From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 27 10:05:33 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 854FC3A6CA7 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:05:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.27 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.27 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.775, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 RUsyeKWpVdtV for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:05:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EB873A69C3 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:05:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnFU3-000AYp-1K for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:04:43 +0000 Received: from [209.85.200.169] (helo=wf-out-1314.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnFTy-000AYH-1y for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:04:40 +0000 Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 28so1380947wfc.32 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:04:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=QtdQLeT0YB2PiwVqx6nrx5BVSBbXjPGZlwONJAdeeCc=; b=sZNwkVdHmouzEOKEc7WopeNboVuMAUkacdISk+XK9wJ/x6LHWyr/r/NqbTb6CrYPOC 7xFUfOf7bQMfW2X++KxL5ljqU5SEYQNHLYxCU3DUDs7R6guSMj91w7OGyC6Tjx7jmA9p QqZHKhQ6NGEDqUu3Folz++rPjRS4t91ddbwq0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=O/uwqHmvWI0IXll3mIM4d39Tjq1U5aYiL/EodYTMwulbSbl1tuVmleUnEfyNj22ADX jT/VEif9JcIr4dO7/IgdR7RmaZv6WhaoxH5FvF524asF1nZQVmeq5inkXXJ7coXHA9rj 8BKGAYJCUqCxnO9QG3uzzlk494oCdzzEHlomg= Received: by 10.142.52.7 with SMTP id z7mr970590wfz.267.1238173477003; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:04:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?130.129.18.229? (dhcp-12e5.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.18.229]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 22sm3125019wfd.26.2009.03.27.10.04.35 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:04:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49CD071D.6080405@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 06:04:29 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" CC: james woodyatt , IPv6 Operations , "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <943C3A80-979F-4289-BA20-C17D20861111@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> <6161A3E1-DCD1-467F-9AD5-0A15821413A2@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> <9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com> <925FA39D-42FC-4E3B-99C7-FA6E0DC7E0B7@apple.com> <49CBB0C9 .40908@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On 2009-03-28 05:10, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote: > Brain and others, > >> If the broadband forum people don't want a use case with direct CPE-CPE >> communication, that's their choice, but we shouldn't artificially >> restrict this in the base spec for CPEs, IMHO. We write IPv6 basic >> standards; they apply them to their use cases. > > For past two days or so, we couldn't understand what scenario was James talking about. I and more folks thought one home to another home communications were being discussed but actually what James was looking at was a single home and this home's networking. We also had a disconnect with James because it wasn't told to us that there was a hub sitting behind the broadband modem and then a CPE Rtr is behind the hub. We assumed the CPE Rtr was directly connected to the broadband modem. Now that all things are clarified and we know it's one single home being discussed, we will look into common scenarios that Service Providers have in mind and take it from there. Yes, but if we conclude that it's desirable in general for CPE routers to behave like routers on their upstream link, AND if some ISPs don't want that, it should be a configuration issue to switch such behaviour on or off. IMHO. Brian From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 27 10:05:43 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C34C73A6CA8 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:05:43 -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, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 D+0QPCP0nLbO for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:05:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DECE53A69C3 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:05:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnFSp-000ATR-5U for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:03:27 +0000 Received: from [2a00:801::f] (helo=uplift.swm.pp.se) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnFSh-000ASp-DI for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:03:23 +0000 Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 721269C; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:03:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EAA19A; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:03:17 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:03:17 +0100 (CET) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: james woodyatt cc: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> <9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com> <925FA39D-42FC-4E3B-99C7-FA6E0DC7E0B7@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903261414l315aa210s7ac1cc050d113d07@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, james woodyatt wrote: > Some vendors of consumer gear seem to feel the need to make the process > of connecting their various appliances together to comprise a > functioning network into a university dissertation defense. I think the > more successful ones take a more subtle approach: they try very hard to > make it as difficult as possible to connect devices together into a > network that doesn't work. When the links between the nodes are all > CAT-5 cables with RJ-45 plugs on each end, that problem is non-trivial > and shouldn't be hand-waved away as not worthy of attention. The solutions I have seen (and I think makes most sense) is to have a WAN port on the home device. This is the way it works with most NAT routers today, they usually have a single WAN port and then for instance, 4 LAN ports. I know some providers who offer 5 IPv4 addresses per customer and who support customer L2 switches being connected, with the downside that all traffic between these devices usually end up going via the ISP (because local-proxy-arp is used for security reasons). For this reason, most people hook up a NAT device anyway, to keep the speed up within their home. So, even though I agree that there should be no artificial limitations imposed, the recommendation for the most scalable solution would be to only support single IPv6 address on the WAN side of the customer device, and require it to do routing and support DHCPv6-PD. This saves TCAM resources on the ISP device which otherwise have to keep adjacancy information for potentially a large number of customer devices. My scenario above is what I envision for ETTH (also VDSL2 and other ethernet framed alternatives). -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 27 10:27:25 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80E153A6968 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:27:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.954 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.954 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.459, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 x9NSxsewQkei for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:27:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 267463A6C83 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:27:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnFpN-000Ckk-Uj for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:26:45 +0000 Received: from [216.82.250.147] (helo=mail129.messagelabs.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnFpH-000Cjz-CC for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:26:43 +0000 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: bs7652@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-13.tower-129.messagelabs.com!1238174797!9222485!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.0.0; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.53] Received: (qmail 31282 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2009 17:26:38 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.53) by server-13.tower-129.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 27 Mar 2009 17:26:38 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n2RHQanq014596; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:26:36 -0400 Received: from 01GAF5142010621.AD.BLS.COM (01GAF5142010621.ad.bls.com [139.76.131.79]) by mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with SMTP id n2RHQW7S014490; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:26:32 -0400 Received: from 01NC27689010626.AD.BLS.COM ([90.144.44.201]) by 01GAF5142010621.AD.BLS.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:26:32 -0400 Received: from 01NC27689010641.AD.BLS.COM ([90.144.44.103]) by 01NC27689010626.AD.BLS.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:26:31 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.3168 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:26:27 -0400 Message-ID: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0D880F0B@crexc41p> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments thread-index: Acmtn8NPb/dWspXYRnODFO9GkKezLwAgXPQwAAiNR8AALNkA8AABYueg References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <0DD150BF-77BC-4527-BD35-9202F94496E0@apple.com> <95F8ED8E-261B-437C-8063-223D345C364B@apple.com> <943C3A80-979F-4289-BA20-C17D20861111@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> <6161A3E1-DCD1-467F-9AD5-0A15821413A2@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> <9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com> <925FA39D-42FC-4E3B-99C7-FA6E0DC7E0B7@apple.com> <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0D880CA8@crexc41p> From: "Stark, Barbara" To: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" , "james woodyatt" , "IPv6 Operations" CC: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Mar 2009 17:26:31.0847 (UTC) FILETIME=[2B9F7B70:01C9AF01] Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: > From: Hemant Singh (shemant) [mailto:shemant@cisco.com] > With your scenarios below, may I ask what are the things that the SPs > currently don't do well with IPv4? I see one problem mentioned - static > routes. What are other problems? =20 Static route configuration is a problem for scenario (1). It's not that hard to do, but a simple automated method (like getting route info from the RA of the access network router) would be preferable. In scenario (3), the problem we see in IPv4 is that most hosts presented with multiple DHCP servers off the same physical interface will just take the first they see and ignore the rest. And these hosts don't know how to figure out what to route to which "IP Gateway". There's really no automated way in common IPv4 "home" usage to support multiple routers. Sure, really knowledgeable people can do it, but not my brother or neighbor. But they would like to be able to do it. > Also, what node are you talking about > when you say "static routes in routing table"? The host or the home > router? I think you mean host, but still it good to make such things > clear. =20 No, I meant the router. The SP has no ability to statically configure the hosts, just the SP router. > If we get a list of all things that SP currently don't do well, > we can analyze the problems and see what we can do. The scenarios you > have shown below are mostly already described in section 5 of RFC 4191. > That may lead one to think, RFC 4191 is a good match for such scenarios > and the scenarios' problems, but note one key feature of RFC 4191. A > SP > or a home user still has to configure the routing information on the > CPE > router(s) before the routing is propagated to hosts in the home. If > provisioning automation was an expectation in IPv6 over IPv4, RFC 4191 > does not buy one that. =20 Actually, RFC 4191 does help. That's why, in scenario (1), I suggested the CPE router be able to accept routing info from the received (on the WAN) RA. If the walled garden access network router sends specific route info in RA (RFC 4191), then the CPE router can receive that and put it in its routing table, and also send that route info downstream to hosts, using RA (RFC 4191). Pure automation of the process, for CPE Routers and hosts. Thanks, Barbara =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Stark, Barbara [mailto:bs7652@att.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2009 3:38 PM > To: Hemant Singh (shemant); james woodyatt; IPv6 Operations > Cc: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) > Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments >=20 > > I think we have to let the Broadband forum > > complete their IPv6 standards and then depending upon what they do, > we > > can revisit this RFC 4191 question. >=20 > The capabilities described in RFC 4191 are certainly something the BBF > is looking at, and it would be interesting to hear IETF thoughts on the > cases that it might handle. >=20 > Here are some possible scenarios: > (1) CPE Router has multiple WAN connections. Let's say one is a > "default" connection that goes to the Internet, while the other is a > connection to a walled garden, or a corporate network, or such. The CPE > router gets prefixes delegated from each, and makes those prefixes > available on its LAN. Is it appropriate / useful for the secondary > network to use RFC 4191 to state which prefixes are behind it? In this > case, the CPE router would need to put that information in its routing > table. Should the CPE Router also use RFC 4191 to tell devices on its > LAN that it supports "default" routes plus these secondary prefixes? >=20 > (2) CPE Router has a wired WAN connection and a backup wireless WAN > connection. Both support "default" connectivity. RFC 4191 could be used > by the wireless connection to state that it's less preferred. A better > solution would probably be to just configure the CPE router with that > knowledge. The wireless network isn't the right place to house the > knowledge of whether or not it's preferred. I don't think RFC 4191 > would > be used well here, but it's something to think about. >=20 > (3) The home has multiple connections through multiple routers. Perhaps > one of these routers is like the router in (1) above, while another > router also supplies a "default" connection, and yet a 3rd supplies a > connection to a walled garden service (maybe it does this by tunneling > over one of the other connections -- if so, this should be invisible to > the hosts in the LAN). Each router advertises prefix(es) to the LAN. It > makes sense for the router to also advertise which prefixes it can > route, especially the walled garden prefixes, which may not be > accessible through any other connection. >=20 > RIPng (or other protocols like it) doesn't really seem to be the right > answer here. As mentioned in the CPE Router draft, it has scalability > concerns in the access network. And it seems kind of weird in the LAN. > But using RFC 4191 to supply route info in the RA would be pretty easy. > This route info is fairly static. >=20 > By the way -- these are all real scenarios. People and service > providers > do these things. They just don't always do them well, today. (1) is > particularly common in IPv4, and is handled through static routing > table > entries. > Barbara ***** The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to = which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or = privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other = use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by = persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If = you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the = material from all computers. GA621 From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 27 10:38:13 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E97933A6968 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:38:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.924 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.924 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.429, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 LMmr4FaFl7Zq for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:38:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D1953A679C for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:38:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnFzu-000Dwj-3k for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:37:38 +0000 Received: from [216.82.253.179] (helo=mail167.messagelabs.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnFzo-000DwL-Hs for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:37:34 +0000 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: bs7652@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-8.tower-167.messagelabs.com!1238175450!9776320!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.0.0; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.53] Received: (qmail 13638 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2009 17:37:31 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.53) by server-8.tower-167.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 27 Mar 2009 17:37:31 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n2RHbTum004324; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:37:30 -0400 Received: from 01GAF5142010622.AD.BLS.COM (01GAF5142010622.ad.bls.com [139.76.131.83]) by mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with SMTP id n2RHbPGN004242; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:37:25 -0400 Received: from 01NC27689010625.AD.BLS.COM ([90.144.44.200]) by 01GAF5142010622.AD.BLS.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:37:25 -0400 Received: from 01NC27689010641.AD.BLS.COM ([90.144.44.103]) by 01NC27689010625.AD.BLS.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:37:24 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.3168 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:37:19 -0400 Message-ID: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0D880F1D@crexc41p> In-Reply-To: <49CD071D.6080405@gmail.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments thread-index: Acmu/2J7nRS52ZbFSZac9T2GBkePPQAAmb2Q References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <943C3A80-979F-4289-BA20-C17D20861111@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> <6161A3E1-DCD1-467F-9AD5-0A15821413A2@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> <9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com> <925FA39D-42FC-4E3B-99C7-FA6E0DC7E0B7@apple.com> <49CBB0C9 .40908@gmail.com> <49CD071D.6080405@gmai l.com> From: "Stark, Barbara" To: "Brian E Carpenter" , "Hemant Singh (shemant)" CC: "james woodyatt" , "IPv6 Operations" , "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Mar 2009 17:37:24.0772 (UTC) FILETIME=[B0CBEE40:01C9AF02] Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: > Yes, but if we conclude that it's desirable in general for > CPE routers to behave like routers on their upstream link, > AND if some ISPs don't want that, it should be a configuration > issue to switch such behaviour on or off. IMHO. >=20 > Brian So, say something like "If the CPE Router is capable of behaving like a = router on its upstream link, it MUST be possible to disable this = behavior."? This avoids the question of whether or not it's desirable (which we = could probably argue endlessly), doesn't recommend the behavior, doesn't = forbid the behavior, but makes sure the CPE Router can behave = appropriately, when the WAN interface is connected to a service provider = access network. Barbara ***** The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to = which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or = privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other = use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by = persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If = you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the = material from all computers. GA622 From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 27 10:41:28 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DB763A6C94 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:41:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.72 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.72 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.225, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 PdB6Y3oITbMu for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:41:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 481D23A679C for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:41:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnG3m-000ESD-P3 for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:41:38 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.117] (helo=sj-iport-6.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnG3g-000ERL-Ry for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:41:35 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,433,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="275437647" Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Mar 2009 17:41:31 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2RHfV4V012399; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:41:31 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2RHfUQO004624; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:41:31 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.40]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:41:30 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:41:29 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <49CD071D.6080405@gmail.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: Acmu/iKl9OPKqVbvSLW7yzw34OxRUQABOyfg References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <943C3A80-979F-4289-BA20-C17D20861111@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> <6161A3E1-DCD1-467F-9AD5-0A15821413A2@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> <9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com> <925FA39D-42FC-4E3B-99C7-FA6E0DC7E0B7@apple.com> <49CBB0C9 .40908@gmail.com> <49CD071D.6080405@gmai l.com> From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" To: "Brian E Carpenter" Cc: "james woodyatt" , "IPv6 Operations" , "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Mar 2009 17:41:30.0452 (UTC) FILETIME=[433BB940:01C9AF03] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=3042; t=1238175691; x=1239039691; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20comm ents |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Brian=20E=20Carpenter=22=20; bh=po06Xzci1v8cF4bEOQhOjRGFlE6JEIONpLsiKpfiV1Q=; b=BIxe1KowcJigi3Vm5KWAlbA66YohLPUY5JB8tCXckD0EJDqbYx1YRbRTJO n4fuAuJ6IhTeLQ+lOaVRSWLuXABmki58qtPNVKuNFWdnXfRjNXlHGcJkQM5L GQXXmawtbm; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=shemant@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: QnJhaW4sDQoNCldlIGhhdmUgdGhvdWdodCBhYm91dCB0aGlzIGZyb20gZGF5IG9uZSBvZiBvdXIg ZG9jdW1lbnQuIFRoaXMgaXMgdGhlIHN1Yi1zZWN0aW9uIHdlIGhhdmUgaW4gb3VyIE9wdGlvbmFs IElQdjYgZmVhdHVyZXMgc2VjdGlvbi4NCg0KWzguMi4gIE9wdGlvbmFsIFJJUG5nIFN1cHBvcnQN ClRoZSBDUEUgUm91dGVyIG1heSBzdXBwb3J0IFJJUG5nIHJvdXRpbmcgcHJvdG9jb2wgW1JGQzIw ODBdIChNYWxraW4sIEcuIGFuZCBSLiBNaW5uZWFyLCDigJxSSVBuZyBmb3IgSVB2NizigJ0gSmFu dWFyeSAxOTk3Likgc28gdGhhdCBSSVBuZyBvcGVyYXRlcyBiZXR3ZWVuIHRoZSBDUEUgUm91dGVy IGFuZCB0aGUgU2VydmljZSBQcm92aWRlciBuZXR3b3JrLiBSSVBuZyBoYXMgc2NhbGluZyBhbmQg c2VjdXJpdHkgaW1wbGljYXRpb25zIGZvciB0aGUgU2VydmljZSBQcm92aWRlciBuZXR3b3JrIHdo ZXJlIG9uZSBTZXJ2aWNlIFByb3ZpZGVyIHJvdXRlciBtYXkgdGVybWluYXRlIHNldmVyYWwgdGVu cyBvZiB0aG91c2FuZHMgb2YgQ1BFIHJvdXRlcnMuIEhvd2V2ZXIsIFJJUG5nIGRvZXMgcHJvdmlk ZSBvbmUgc29sdXRpb24gZnJvbSB0aGUgQ1BFIFJvdXRlciB0byB0aGUgU2VydmljZSBQcm92aWRl ciBuZXR3b3JrIGZvciBwcmVmaXggcm91dGUgaW5qZWN0aW9uLl0NCg0KSGVtYW50DQoNCi0tLS0t T3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0tDQpGcm9tOiBCcmlhbiBFIENhcnBlbnRlciBbbWFpbHRvOmJy aWFuLmUuY2FycGVudGVyQGdtYWlsLmNvbV0gDQpTZW50OiBGcmlkYXksIE1hcmNoIDI3LCAyMDA5 IDE6MDQgUE0NClRvOiBIZW1hbnQgU2luZ2ggKHNoZW1hbnQpDQpDYzogamFtZXMgd29vZHlhdHQ7 IElQdjYgT3BlcmF0aW9uczsgV2VzIEJlZWJlZSAod2JlZWJlZSkNClN1YmplY3Q6IFJlOiBkcmFm dC13YmVlYmVlLWlwdjYtY3BlLXJvdXRlci0wNCBjb21tZW50cw0KDQpPbiAyMDA5LTAzLTI4IDA1 OjEwLCBIZW1hbnQgU2luZ2ggKHNoZW1hbnQpIHdyb3RlOg0KPiBCcmFpbiBhbmQgb3RoZXJzLA0K PiANCj4+IElmIHRoZSBicm9hZGJhbmQgZm9ydW0gcGVvcGxlIGRvbid0IHdhbnQgYSB1c2UgY2Fz ZSB3aXRoIGRpcmVjdCBDUEUtQ1BFDQo+PiBjb21tdW5pY2F0aW9uLCB0aGF0J3MgdGhlaXIgY2hv aWNlLCBidXQgd2Ugc2hvdWxkbid0IGFydGlmaWNpYWxseQ0KPj4gcmVzdHJpY3QgdGhpcyBpbiB0 aGUgYmFzZSBzcGVjIGZvciBDUEVzLCBJTUhPLiBXZSB3cml0ZSBJUHY2IGJhc2ljDQo+PiBzdGFu ZGFyZHM7IHRoZXkgYXBwbHkgdGhlbSB0byB0aGVpciB1c2UgY2FzZXMuDQo+IA0KPiBGb3IgcGFz dCB0d28gZGF5cyBvciBzbywgd2UgY291bGRuJ3QgdW5kZXJzdGFuZCB3aGF0IHNjZW5hcmlvIHdh cyBKYW1lcyB0YWxraW5nIGFib3V0LiAgSSBhbmQgbW9yZSBmb2xrcyB0aG91Z2h0IG9uZSBob21l IHRvIGFub3RoZXIgaG9tZSBjb21tdW5pY2F0aW9ucyB3ZXJlIGJlaW5nIGRpc2N1c3NlZCBidXQg YWN0dWFsbHkgd2hhdCBKYW1lcyB3YXMgbG9va2luZyBhdCB3YXMgYSBzaW5nbGUgaG9tZSBhbmQg dGhpcyBob21lJ3MgbmV0d29ya2luZy4gIFdlIGFsc28gaGFkIGEgZGlzY29ubmVjdCB3aXRoIEph bWVzIGJlY2F1c2UgaXQgd2Fzbid0IHRvbGQgdG8gdXMgdGhhdCB0aGVyZSB3YXMgYSBodWIgc2l0 dGluZyBiZWhpbmQgdGhlIGJyb2FkYmFuZCBtb2RlbSBhbmQgdGhlbiBhIENQRSBSdHIgaXMgYmVo aW5kIHRoZSBodWIuICBXZSBhc3N1bWVkIHRoZSBDUEUgUnRyIHdhcyBkaXJlY3RseSBjb25uZWN0 ZWQgdG8gdGhlIGJyb2FkYmFuZCBtb2RlbS4gTm93IHRoYXQgYWxsIHRoaW5ncyBhcmUgY2xhcmlm aWVkIGFuZCB3ZSBrbm93IGl0J3Mgb25lIHNpbmdsZSBob21lIGJlaW5nIGRpc2N1c3NlZCwgd2Ug d2lsbCBsb29rIGludG8gY29tbW9uIHNjZW5hcmlvcyB0aGF0IFNlcnZpY2UgUHJvdmlkZXJzIGhh dmUgaW4gbWluZCBhbmQgdGFrZSBpdCBmcm9tIHRoZXJlLg0KDQpZZXMsIGJ1dCBpZiB3ZSBjb25j bHVkZSB0aGF0IGl0J3MgZGVzaXJhYmxlIGluIGdlbmVyYWwgZm9yDQpDUEUgcm91dGVycyB0byBi ZWhhdmUgbGlrZSByb3V0ZXJzIG9uIHRoZWlyIHVwc3RyZWFtIGxpbmssDQpBTkQgaWYgc29tZSBJ U1BzIGRvbid0IHdhbnQgdGhhdCwgaXQgc2hvdWxkIGJlIGEgY29uZmlndXJhdGlvbg0KaXNzdWUg dG8gc3dpdGNoIHN1Y2ggYmVoYXZpb3VyIG9uIG9yIG9mZi4gSU1ITy4NCg0KICAgQnJpYW4NCg== From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 27 10:45:39 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D53B3A6CA7 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:45:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.255 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.255 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.760, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 Ju87simxfraj for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:45:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C8DA3A6857 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:45:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnG7w-000F0r-1J for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:45:56 +0000 Received: from [209.85.200.168] (helo=wf-out-1314.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnG7r-000F0A-56 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:45:53 +0000 Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 28so1399372wfc.32 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:45:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=c7gd+/Xd1091R7zFY1xN86HSpZjcaQA7Bfek8ThtRDw=; b=YkJFEfPvwd8CEtW9V2RqlsbcVQ4REXN++261u/GAp1gcdFPNnwQ0bry5vYNaiz1bd1 vGftO/qpBOcL4ZzS9Vt1Rj1HZjrqoenPty2nSTmrLV4pyDvLeZOb1kaRIMmA0ESeFs5/ Uh7HaukAMF+5nzYL/cke7VbjrAGdfjLQrjYSg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=wZpJYVoQE6YsZdbuZcYG4Ur6EXlWszQkPSbQos6e77Agrku1Sn9JbLzms3auGIt91z 8vB99vCcm4obTQG20lVcSWCQOW2adICNBTSfY9BBE12Tt93kf+IVuyHHyrnrsNeSNM/t kaXpIxFlegbEgeGFRx38cjz67Eny89ZiTcrBI= Received: by 10.142.161.10 with SMTP id j10mr991143wfe.137.1238175950977; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:45:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?130.129.18.229? (dhcp-12e5.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.18.229]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 30sm3317912wfa.58.2009.03.27.10.45.49 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:45:50 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49CD10C7.4050909@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 06:45:43 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Stark, Barbara" CC: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" , james woodyatt , IPv6 Operations , "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <943C3A80-979F-4289-BA20-C17D20861111@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> <6161A3E1-DCD1-467F-9AD5-0A15821413A2@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> <9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com> <925FA39D-42FC-4E3B-99C7-FA6E0DC7E0B7@apple.com> <49CBB0C9 .40908@gmail.com> <49CD071D.6080405@gmail.com> <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0D880F1D@crexc41p> In-Reply-To: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0D880F1D@crexc41p> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On 2009-03-28 06:37, Stark, Barbara wrote: >> Yes, but if we conclude that it's desirable in general for >> CPE routers to behave like routers on their upstream link, >> AND if some ISPs don't want that, it should be a configuration >> issue to switch such behaviour on or off. IMHO. >> >> Brian > > So, say something like "If the CPE Router is capable of behaving like a router on its upstream link, it MUST be possible to disable this behavior."? > > This avoids the question of whether or not it's desirable (which we could probably argue endlessly), doesn't recommend the behavior, doesn't forbid the behavior, but makes sure the CPE Router can behave appropriately, when the WAN interface is connected to a service provider access network. > Barbara Agreed, and that is compatible with the RIPng text that Hemant just quoted. Brian From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 27 10:45:47 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E59673A6857 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:45:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.712 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.712 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.217, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 iNHBYANW6KKi for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:45:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B41803A6A4D for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:45:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnG7W-000Ey3-Sv for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:45:30 +0000 Received: from [64.102.122.148] (helo=rtp-iport-1.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnG7S-000Ewo-4M for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:45:28 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,433,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="40475096" Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Mar 2009 17:45:25 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2RHjP98022422; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:45:25 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2RHjPc1028030; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:45:25 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.40]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:45:24 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:45:24 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0D880F1D@crexc41p> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: Acmu/2J7nRS52ZbFSZac9T2GBkePPQAAmb2QAABvLEA= References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <943C3A80-979F-4289-BA20-C17D20861111@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> <6161A3E1-DCD1-467F-9AD5-0A15821413A2@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> <9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com> <925FA39D-42FC-4E3B-99C7-FA6E0DC7E0B7@apple.com> <49CBB0C9 .40908@gmail.com> <49CD071D.6080405@gmai l.com> < 7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0D880F1D@crexc41p> From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" To: "Stark, Barbara" , "Brian E Carpenter" Cc: "james woodyatt" , "IPv6 Operations" , "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Mar 2009 17:45:24.0939 (UTC) FILETIME=[CEFF99B0:01C9AF03] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2432; t=1238175925; x=1239039925; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20comm ents |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Stark,=20Barbara=22=20,=0A=20=20= 20=20=20=20=20=20=22Brian=20E=20Carpenter=22=20; bh=GEOW7PELAgsOR+RWv9HFm+5h+IyTa677UulMkHyYp/0=; b=rSFeKLj5NNPRCP9ntvxRGOU4Z3sujEWwUNvmIOv9EUHjyBVVSQNmP0ss/K AluxuY0yCkel1cCJvcN956O2U0oWJstneUgWeIVmyDelOazjmBWxVOtQx0OM cDPbc7y4Sn; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=shemant@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: QmFyYmFyYSwNCg0KU3VjaCBhIHRob3VnaHQgaGFzIGFsc28gYmVlbiBhbHJlYWR5IGNhcHR1cmVk IGluIHRoZSBDUEUgUnRyIGRvY3VtZW50IC0gd2UgYWdyZWUgd2l0aCB5b3UuICBTZWUgc2VjdGlv biAzLjEgb2YgQ29uY2VwdHVhbCBDb25maWd1cmF0aW9uIFZhcmlhYmxlcywgNHRoIGJ1bGxldC4g IEJ5IGRlZmF1bHQgdGhlIGRvY3VtZW50IHJlY29tbWVuZHMgaWYgdGhlIGRldmljZSBzdXBwb3J0 cyBSSVBuZyBvbiB0aGUgdXBzdHJlYW0gV0FOIHBvcnQocyksIFJJUG5nIGlzIGRpc2FibGVkIGJ5 IGRlZmF1bHQuDQoNCkhlbWFudA0KDQotLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQ0KRnJvbTog U3RhcmssIEJhcmJhcmEgW21haWx0bzpiczc2NTJAYXR0LmNvbV0gDQpTZW50OiBGcmlkYXksIE1h cmNoIDI3LCAyMDA5IDE6MzcgUE0NClRvOiBCcmlhbiBFIENhcnBlbnRlcjsgSGVtYW50IFNpbmdo IChzaGVtYW50KQ0KQ2M6IGphbWVzIHdvb2R5YXR0OyBJUHY2IE9wZXJhdGlvbnM7IFdlcyBCZWVi ZWUgKHdiZWViZWUpDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBSRTogZHJhZnQtd2JlZWJlZS1pcHY2LWNwZS1yb3V0ZXIt MDQgY29tbWVudHMNCg0KPiBZZXMsIGJ1dCBpZiB3ZSBjb25jbHVkZSB0aGF0IGl0J3MgZGVzaXJh YmxlIGluIGdlbmVyYWwgZm9yDQo+IENQRSByb3V0ZXJzIHRvIGJlaGF2ZSBsaWtlIHJvdXRlcnMg b24gdGhlaXIgdXBzdHJlYW0gbGluaywNCj4gQU5EIGlmIHNvbWUgSVNQcyBkb24ndCB3YW50IHRo YXQsIGl0IHNob3VsZCBiZSBhIGNvbmZpZ3VyYXRpb24NCj4gaXNzdWUgdG8gc3dpdGNoIHN1Y2gg YmVoYXZpb3VyIG9uIG9yIG9mZi4gSU1ITy4NCj4gDQo+ICAgIEJyaWFuDQoNClNvLCBzYXkgc29t ZXRoaW5nIGxpa2UgIklmIHRoZSBDUEUgUm91dGVyIGlzIGNhcGFibGUgb2YgYmVoYXZpbmcgbGlr ZSBhIHJvdXRlciBvbiBpdHMgdXBzdHJlYW0gbGluaywgaXQgTVVTVCBiZSBwb3NzaWJsZSB0byBk aXNhYmxlIHRoaXMgYmVoYXZpb3IuIj8NCg0KVGhpcyBhdm9pZHMgdGhlIHF1ZXN0aW9uIG9mIHdo ZXRoZXIgb3Igbm90IGl0J3MgZGVzaXJhYmxlICh3aGljaCB3ZSBjb3VsZCBwcm9iYWJseSBhcmd1 ZSBlbmRsZXNzbHkpLCBkb2Vzbid0IHJlY29tbWVuZCB0aGUgYmVoYXZpb3IsIGRvZXNuJ3QgZm9y YmlkIHRoZSBiZWhhdmlvciwgYnV0IG1ha2VzIHN1cmUgdGhlIENQRSBSb3V0ZXIgY2FuIGJlaGF2 ZSBhcHByb3ByaWF0ZWx5LCB3aGVuIHRoZSBXQU4gaW50ZXJmYWNlIGlzIGNvbm5lY3RlZCB0byBh IHNlcnZpY2UgcHJvdmlkZXIgYWNjZXNzIG5ldHdvcmsuDQpCYXJiYXJhDQoNCioqKioqDQoNClRo ZSBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiB0cmFuc21pdHRlZCBpcyBpbnRlbmRlZCBvbmx5IGZvciB0aGUgcGVyc29u IG9yIGVudGl0eSB0byB3aGljaCBpdCBpcyBhZGRyZXNzZWQgYW5kIG1heSBjb250YWluIGNvbmZp ZGVudGlhbCwgcHJvcHJpZXRhcnksIGFuZC9vciBwcml2aWxlZ2VkIG1hdGVyaWFsLiBBbnkgcmV2 aWV3LCByZXRyYW5zbWlzc2lvbiwgZGlzc2VtaW5hdGlvbiBvciBvdGhlciB1c2Ugb2YsIG9yIHRh a2luZyBvZiBhbnkgYWN0aW9uIGluIHJlbGlhbmNlIHVwb24gdGhpcyBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBieSBw ZXJzb25zIG9yIGVudGl0aWVzIG90aGVyIHRoYW4gdGhlIGludGVuZGVkIHJlY2lwaWVudCBpcyBw cm9oaWJpdGVkLiBJZiB5b3UgcmVjZWl2ZWQgdGhpcyBpbiBlcnJvciwgcGxlYXNlIGNvbnRhY3Qg dGhlIHNlbmRlciBhbmQgZGVsZXRlIHRoZSBtYXRlcmlhbCBmcm9tIGFsbCBjb21wdXRlcnMuIEdB NjIyDQoNCg0K From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 27 12:43:58 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9BD83A6857 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:43:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.683 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.683 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.188, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 mfntq+0HbeSK for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:43:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 901563A6C7D for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:43:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnHuc-0001Fz-2k for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:40:18 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.70] (helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnHuV-0001El-Hk for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:40:13 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,434,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="162835247" Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Mar 2009 19:40:10 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2RJeARL002843; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:40:10 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2RJeAUE004422; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:40:10 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.118]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:40:10 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:40:09 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <925FA39D-42FC-4E3B-99C7-FA6E0DC7E0B7@apple.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: Acmtn8NXBkiWDxs/Q26RWqIFVoFKpQBc40uQ References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <0DD150BF-77BC-4527-BD35-9202F94496E0@apple.com> <95F8ED8E-261B-437C-8063-223D345C364B@apple.com> <943C3A80-979F-4289-BA20-C17D20861111@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> <6161A3E1-DCD1-467F-9AD5-0A15821413A2@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> <9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com> <925FA39D-42FC-4E3B-99C7-FA6E0DC7E0B7@apple.com> From: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" To: "james woodyatt" , "IPv6 Operations" Cc: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Mar 2009 19:40:10.0250 (UTC) FILETIME=[D6F6AEA0:01C9AF13] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1490; t=1238182810; x=1239046810; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=wbeebee@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Wes=20Beebee=20(wbeebee)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20comm ents |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22james=20woodyatt=22=20,=20=22IPv6= 20Operations=22=20; bh=gtqcrgvnjoLibnLvmmUdg1099pMEUNkkH7l94mODASs=; b=I24bme1iYhVT/Z0CqfptBR59Pjhdii5vrqR2fv6DDWOwJ0Vo9ODotlQ/iE 4wHaCNVj+E4xyEd3edxYja13xOA/+kaxvjJazJuR3Vv935bJqcm37Gzfkoah +hOeV4om3a; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=wbeebee@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: The new text for MSR's is as follows: "8.7 Multi-homed Host Support (MEDIUM) The CPE Router MAY support RFC4191 on its LAN interfaces. Small consumer embedded multi-homed hosts in the home may not have configurable routing tables. The CPE Router can communicate More Specific Routes (MSRs) to these hosts to allow them to choose a preferred router to send traffic to for traffic destined to specific prefixes configured through manual configuration. Advertisement of MSRs through RAs is turned off by default." - Wes -----Original Message----- From: james woodyatt [mailto:jhw@apple.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:17 PM To: IPv6 Operations Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); Wes Beebee (wbeebee) Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments On Mar 25, 2009, at 16:06, james woodyatt wrote: > > Please let me clarify my remarks and narrow my request somewhat, now=20 > that I've had a chance to review more of the CPE Router draft. I am=20 > only interested in such RFC 4191 messages when a valid PIO has been=20 > received on the WAN link with L=3D1. No other cases are interesting. I take it back. It's interesting in the other cases as well. Two CPE routers attached to the same link will exchange their prefixes with MSR advertisements regardless of whether the RAs from the service provider have PIO options in them. As they should. -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, communications engineering From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 27 12:58:29 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DD6F3A6C79 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:58:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.705 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.705 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.210, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 gzhNW+XYqjhb for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:58:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12F003A6857 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:58:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnIBc-0002om-Uw for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:57:52 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.71] (helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnIBR-0002nJ-AR for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:57:49 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,434,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="147690678" Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Mar 2009 19:56:49 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2RJunCh011918; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:56:49 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2RJunh0019159; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:56:49 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.40]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:56:48 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:56:47 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: Acmtn8NXBkiWDxs/Q26RWqIFVoFKpQBc40uQAAA80GA= References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <0DD150BF-77BC-4527-BD35-9202F94496E0@apple.com> <95F8ED8E-261B-437C-8063-223D345C364B@apple.com> <943C3A80-979F-4289-BA20-C17D20861111@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> <6161A3E1-DCD1-467F-9AD5-0A15821413A2@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> <9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com> <925FA39D-42FC-4E3B-99C7-FA6E0DC7E0B7@apple.com> From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" To: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" , "james woodyatt" , "IPv6 Operations" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Mar 2009 19:56:48.0830 (UTC) FILETIME=[2A29E5E0:01C9AF16] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2445; t=1238183809; x=1239047809; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20comm ents |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Wes=20Beebee=20(wbeebee)=22=20 ,=0A=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=22james=20woodyatt=22=20,=0A=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=22IPv6=20Operations=22= 20; bh=7RJNY2Z/4KA9bmf9A/h1Umd/Dy1qgI+tB42OFoECS7A=; b=mj5EjCI1CTBZA0n6eEFLVRpcr5ZbLFLzBaeITkJfrLSClVXOWRfOBUmRYP Vve+VMn3iKnd2MofShWJVP6PK2v6SBmOynKDrY3b0OkXc+vfu8X0ZpKjUu5O vqbRKbf0C5; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=shemant@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: James,=20 Please note, we do not recommend that MSR be used to learn routes between two routers in the home. If there is more than one router in the home, then we recommend RIPng be used. Hopefully the text below is clear that only when small consumer embedded devices exist in the home and such devices multi-homed, then MSR use is recommended to be enabled on the CPE Rtr. Also We got convinced because we found a use case where an IPhone is in the home wireless LAN and also connected to AT&T's cellular network where the phone downloads its favorite apps from an AT&T server but for other access the phone may use the home wireless networks provided on a CPE Router connected to the broadband modem. Hemant -----Original Message----- From: Wes Beebee (wbeebee)=20 Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 3:40 PM To: james woodyatt; IPv6 Operations Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant) Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments The new text for MSR's is as follows: "8.7 Multi-homed Host Support (MEDIUM) The CPE Router MAY support RFC4191 on its LAN interfaces. Small consumer embedded multi-homed hosts in the home may not have configurable routing tables. The CPE Router can communicate More Specific Routes (MSRs) to these hosts to allow them to choose a preferred router to send traffic to for traffic destined to specific prefixes configured through manual configuration. Advertisement of MSRs through RAs is turned off by default." - Wes -----Original Message----- From: james woodyatt [mailto:jhw@apple.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:17 PM To: IPv6 Operations Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); Wes Beebee (wbeebee) Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments On Mar 25, 2009, at 16:06, james woodyatt wrote: > > Please let me clarify my remarks and narrow my request somewhat, now=20 > that I've had a chance to review more of the CPE Router draft. I am=20 > only interested in such RFC 4191 messages when a valid PIO has been=20 > received on the WAN link with L=3D1. No other cases are interesting. I take it back. It's interesting in the other cases as well. Two CPE routers attached to the same link will exchange their prefixes with MSR advertisements regardless of whether the RAs from the service provider have PIO options in them. As they should. -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, communications engineering From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 27 13:10:40 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00B723A6B5E for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:10:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.184 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.184 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.689, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 HzOpKHtemnKi for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:10:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B34723A6B25 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:10:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnINa-0004GY-G6 for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:10:14 +0000 Received: from [130.76.64.48] (helo=slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnINU-0004F6-14 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:10:11 +0000 Received: from slb-av-01.boeing.com (slb-av-01.boeing.com [129.172.13.4]) by slb-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/8.14.0/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id n2RK9w8A019674 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:09:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from slb-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by slb-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id n2RK9wFo005731; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:09:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwbh-11.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.55.84]) by slb-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id n2RK9sYU005578; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:09:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.54.35]) by XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:09:57 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:09:55 -0700 Message-ID: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A105BE9746@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: Acmu/iKl9OPKqVbvSLW7yzw34OxRUQABOyfgAATmKTA= References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <943C3A80-979F-4289-BA20-C17D20861111@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> <6161A3E1-DCD1-467F-9AD5-0A15821413A2@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> <9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com> <925FA39D-42FC-4E3B-99C7-FA6E0DC7E0B7@apple.com> <49CBB0C9 .40908@gmail.com> <49CD071D.6080405@gma! !il.com> From: "Templin, Fred L" To: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" , "Brian E Carpenter" Cc: "james woodyatt" , "IPv6 Operations" , "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Mar 2009 20:09:57.0229 (UTC) FILETIME=[001609D0:01C9AF18] Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Hemant, =20 > [8.2. Optional RIPng Support > The CPE Router may support RIPng routing protocol [RFC2080] (Malkin, G. and R. Minnear, "RIPng for > IPv6," January 1997.) so that RIPng operates between the CPE Router and the Service Provider network. > RIPng has scaling and security implications for the Service Provider network where one Service > Provider router may terminate several tens of thousands of CPE routers. However, RIPng does provide > one solution from the CPE Router to the Service Provider network for prefix route injection.] I don't see it as necessary to run RIPng when the CPEs act as routers. If we are willing to allow the CPEs to establish automatic IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnels across the provider network to a default IPv6 router, then the CPEs can access the IPv6 Internet. If the default router knows of a more direct path to the destination within the provider network, it can also send an ICMP redirect. So, there is no IPv6 routing protocol but the tens of thousands of customers still get to configure their CPE devices as IPv6 routers. This is exactly the VET model. Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com =20 >=20 > Hemant >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 1:04 PM > To: Hemant Singh (shemant) > Cc: james woodyatt; IPv6 Operations; Wes Beebee (wbeebee) > Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments >=20 > On 2009-03-28 05:10, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote: > > Brain and others, > > > >> If the broadband forum people don't want a use case with direct CPE-CPE > >> communication, that's their choice, but we shouldn't artificially > >> restrict this in the base spec for CPEs, IMHO. We write IPv6 basic > >> standards; they apply them to their use cases. > > > > For past two days or so, we couldn't understand what scenario was James talking about. I and more > folks thought one home to another home communications were being discussed but actually what James > was looking at was a single home and this home's networking. We also had a disconnect with James > because it wasn't told to us that there was a hub sitting behind the broadband modem and then a CPE > Rtr is behind the hub. We assumed the CPE Rtr was directly connected to the broadband modem. Now > that all things are clarified and we know it's one single home being discussed, we will look into > common scenarios that Service Providers have in mind and take it from there. >=20 > Yes, but if we conclude that it's desirable in general for > CPE routers to behave like routers on their upstream link, > AND if some ISPs don't want that, it should be a configuration > issue to switch such behaviour on or off. IMHO. >=20 > Brian From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 27 13:46:36 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D71473A6CBC for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:46:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.896 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.402, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 ENrCfj2Q4sHI for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:46:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EA923A6A34 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:46:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnIuu-0007qb-Ih for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:44:40 +0000 Received: from [216.82.250.147] (helo=mail129.messagelabs.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnIuh-0007pC-8y for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:44:29 +0000 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: bs7652@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-3.tower-129.messagelabs.com!1238186664!28238340!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.0.0; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.53] Received: (qmail 22191 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2009 20:44:24 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.53) by server-3.tower-129.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 27 Mar 2009 20:44:24 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n2RKiNdA003326; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:44:23 -0400 Received: from 01GAF5142010622.AD.BLS.COM (01GAF5142010622.ad.bls.com [139.76.131.83]) by mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with SMTP id n2RKiItT003266; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:44:18 -0400 Received: from 01NC27689010627.AD.BLS.COM ([90.144.44.202]) by 01GAF5142010622.AD.BLS.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:44:17 -0400 Received: from 01NC27689010641.AD.BLS.COM ([90.144.44.103]) by 01NC27689010627.AD.BLS.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:44:17 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.3168 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9AF1C.CBA5F1DB" Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:44:16 -0400 Message-ID: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA08AB7B0B@crexc41p> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments thread-index: Acmtn8NXBkiWDxs/Q26RWqIFVoFKpQBc40uQAAJe0Ug= From: "Stark, Barbara" To: , , CC: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Mar 2009 20:44:17.0348 (UTC) FILETIME=[CC034040:01C9AF1C] Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9AF1C.CBA5F1DB Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It's not clear to me why manual configuration is specified as *the* way = to configure these routes (again, I see RA (RFC 4191) from the access = network to the CPE Rtr WAN interface as a way to configure the routes). = I propose that if a CPE Rtr gets such routes from the WAN that it = automatically put those same route prefixes in its LAN RAs. In which = case it would not be off by default, but on by default (it would = automatically send specific route info if it has specific route info to = send).=20 Barbara ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org To: james woodyatt ; IPv6 Operations Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant) Sent: Fri Mar 27 15:40:09 2009 Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments The new text for MSR's is as follows: "8.7 Multi-homed Host Support (MEDIUM) The CPE Router MAY support RFC4191 on its LAN interfaces. Small consumer embedded multi-homed hosts in the home may not have configurable routing tables. The CPE Router can communicate More Specific Routes (MSRs) to these hosts to allow them to choose a preferred router to send traffic to for traffic destined to specific prefixes configured through manual configuration. Advertisement of MSRs through RAs is turned off by default." - Wes -----Original Message----- From: james woodyatt [mailto:jhw@apple.com]=20 Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:17 PM To: IPv6 Operations Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); Wes Beebee (wbeebee) Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments On Mar 25, 2009, at 16:06, james woodyatt wrote: > > Please let me clarify my remarks and narrow my request somewhat, now=20 > that I've had a chance to review more of the CPE Router draft. I am=20 > only interested in such RFC 4191 messages when a valid PIO has been=20 > received on the WAN link with L=3D1. No other cases are interesting. I take it back. It's interesting in the other cases as well. Two CPE routers attached to the same link will exchange their prefixes with MSR advertisements regardless of whether the RAs from the service provider have PIO options in them. As they should. -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, communications engineering ***** The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to = which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or = privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other = use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by = persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If = you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the = material from all computers. GA622 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9AF1C.CBA5F1DB Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

It's not clear to me why manual configuration is = specified as *the* way to configure these routes (again, I see RA (RFC = 4191) from the access network to the CPE Rtr WAN interface as a way to = configure the routes). I propose that if a CPE Rtr gets such routes from = the WAN that it automatically put those same route prefixes in its LAN = RAs. In which case it would not be off by default, but on by default (it = would automatically send specific route info if it has specific route = info to send).
Barbara

----- Original Message -----
From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
To: james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>; IPv6 Operations = <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant) <shemant@cisco.com>
Sent: Fri Mar 27 15:40:09 2009
Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

The new text for MSR's is as follows:

"8.7 Multi-homed Host Support (MEDIUM)
The CPE Router MAY support RFC4191 on its LAN interfaces.  = Small
consumer embedded multi-homed hosts in the home may not have
configurable routing tables.  The CPE Router can communicate = More
Specific Routes (MSRs) to these hosts to allow them to choose a
preferred router to send traffic to for traffic destined to specific
prefixes configured through manual configuration.  Advertisement of = MSRs
through RAs is turned off by default."

- Wes

-----Original Message-----
From: james woodyatt [mailto:jhw@apple.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:17 PM
To: IPv6 Operations
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

On Mar 25, 2009, at 16:06, james woodyatt wrote:
>
> Please let me clarify my remarks and narrow my request somewhat, = now
> that I've had a chance to review more of the CPE Router = draft.  I am
> only interested in such RFC 4191 messages when a valid PIO has = been
> received on the WAN link with L=3D1.  No other cases are = interesting.

I take it back.  It's interesting in the other cases as well.  = Two CPE
routers attached to the same link will exchange their prefixes with = MSR
advertisements regardless of whether the RAs from the service = provider
have PIO options in them.  As they should.


--
james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
member of technical staff, communications engineering

*****

The information = transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is = addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged = material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or = taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or = entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you = received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the = material from all computers. GA622

 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9AF1C.CBA5F1DB-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 27 13:55:56 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 730123A6B02 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:55:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.662 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.662 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.167, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 MclTiC1T3dpn for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:55:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD5243A6A93 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:55:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnJ5c-0008no-Fb for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:55:44 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.70] (helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnJ5Q-0008lx-5h for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:55:40 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,434,1233532800"; d="scan'208,217";a="162879637" Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Mar 2009 20:55:31 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2RKtVCX009162; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:55:31 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2RKtVQx009622; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:55:31 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.118]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:55:31 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9AF1E.5D4B5645" Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:55:30 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA08AB7B0B@crexc41p> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: Acmtn8NXBkiWDxs/Q26RWqIFVoFKpQBc40uQAAJe0UgAAErakA== References: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA08AB7B0B@crexc41p> From: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" To: "Stark, Barbara" , , Cc: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Mar 2009 20:55:31.0034 (UTC) FILETIME=[5D8F93A0:01C9AF1E] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=9519; t=1238187331; x=1239051331; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=wbeebee@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Wes=20Beebee=20(wbeebee)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20comm ents |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Stark,=20Barbara=22=20,=20,=20; bh=PXOrgb4OUcO3kfKoe8QUpPNJ/pkOW8jpehJtj7B5eWk=; b=i/StjZUhNSRHs7cISzBfc6hmUQfiT+DezJqPTs03C5CKZ9PXG+dhBnd80w S20xUjfsc/XO4MiptHBqKbgK1flLFBmzxful5bbijsCzZPXizhGG7vrHOTt2 GSAPXAJXoI; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=wbeebee@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9AF1E.5D4B5645 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In the Abstract, RFC 4191 says explicitly: =20 "The preference values and specific routes advertised to hosts require administrative configuration; they are not automatically derived from routing tables." =20 Further, throughout RFC 4191, they give examples that illustrate why they make this statement. The problems (briefly) are stability of routes, more than 17 routes getting advertised (too many routes), etc.=20 =20 - Wes ________________________________ From: Stark, Barbara [mailto:bs7652@att.com]=20 Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 4:44 PM To: Wes Beebee (wbeebee); jhw@apple.com; v6ops@ops.ietf.org Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant) Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments It's not clear to me why manual configuration is specified as *the* way to configure these routes (again, I see RA (RFC 4191) from the access network to the CPE Rtr WAN interface as a way to configure the routes). I propose that if a CPE Rtr gets such routes from the WAN that it automatically put those same route prefixes in its LAN RAs. In which case it would not be off by default, but on by default (it would automatically send specific route info if it has specific route info to send). Barbara ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org To: james woodyatt ; IPv6 Operations Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant) Sent: Fri Mar 27 15:40:09 2009 Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments The new text for MSR's is as follows: "8.7 Multi-homed Host Support (MEDIUM) The CPE Router MAY support RFC4191 on its LAN interfaces. Small consumer embedded multi-homed hosts in the home may not have configurable routing tables. The CPE Router can communicate More Specific Routes (MSRs) to these hosts to allow them to choose a preferred router to send traffic to for traffic destined to specific prefixes configured through manual configuration. Advertisement of MSRs through RAs is turned off by default." - Wes -----Original Message----- From: james woodyatt [mailto:jhw@apple.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:17 PM To: IPv6 Operations Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); Wes Beebee (wbeebee) Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments On Mar 25, 2009, at 16:06, james woodyatt wrote: > > Please let me clarify my remarks and narrow my request somewhat, now > that I've had a chance to review more of the CPE Router draft. I am > only interested in such RFC 4191 messages when a valid PIO has been > received on the WAN link with L=3D1. No other cases are interesting. I take it back. It's interesting in the other cases as well. Two CPE routers attached to the same link will exchange their prefixes with MSR advertisements regardless of whether the RAs from the service provider have PIO options in them. As they should. -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, communications engineering ***** The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. GA622 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9AF1E.5D4B5645 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments
In the Abstract, RFC 4191 says=20 explicitly:
 
"The preference values and specific routes = advertised to=20 hosts require administrative configuration; they are not automatically = derived=20 from routing tables."
 
Further, throughout RFC 4191, they give = examples that=20 illustrate why they make this statement.  The problems = (briefly) are=20 stability of routes, more than 17 routes getting advertised (too many = routes),=20 etc. 
 
- Wes

From: Stark, Barbara = [mailto:bs7652@att.com]=20
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 4:44 PM
To: Wes Beebee = (wbeebee); jhw@apple.com; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Hemant Singh=20 (shemant)
Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20 comments

It's not clear to me why manual configuration is = specified as=20 *the* way to configure these routes (again, I see RA (RFC 4191) from the = access=20 network to the CPE Rtr WAN interface as a way to configure the routes). = I=20 propose that if a CPE Rtr gets such routes from the WAN that it = automatically=20 put those same route prefixes in its LAN RAs. In which case it would not = be off=20 by default, but on by default (it would automatically send specific = route info=20 if it has specific route info to send).
Barbara

----- Original = Message=20 -----
From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org = <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
To:=20 james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>; IPv6 Operations=20 <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant)=20 <shemant@cisco.com>
Sent: Fri Mar 27 15:40:09 2009
Subject: = RE:=20 draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

The new text for MSR's = is as=20 follows:

"8.7 Multi-homed Host Support (MEDIUM)
The CPE Router = MAY=20 support RFC4191 on its LAN interfaces.  Small
consumer embedded=20 multi-homed hosts in the home may not have
configurable routing = tables. =20 The CPE Router can communicate More
Specific Routes (MSRs) to these = hosts to=20 allow them to choose a
preferred router to send traffic to for = traffic=20 destined to specific
prefixes configured through manual = configuration. =20 Advertisement of MSRs
through RAs is turned off by default."

- = Wes

-----Original Message-----
From: james woodyatt [mailto:jhw@apple.com]
Sent: = Wednesday, March=20 25, 2009 7:17 PM
To: IPv6 Operations
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); = Wes=20 Beebee (wbeebee)
Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20 comments

On Mar 25, 2009, at 16:06, james woodyatt = wrote:
>
>=20 Please let me clarify my remarks and narrow my request somewhat, = now
>=20 that I've had a chance to review more of the CPE Router draft.  I=20 am
> only interested in such RFC 4191 messages when a valid PIO = has=20 been
> received on the WAN link with L=3D1.  No other cases = are=20 interesting.

I take it back.  It's interesting in the other = cases as=20 well.  Two CPE
routers attached to the same link will exchange = their=20 prefixes with MSR
advertisements regardless of whether the RAs from = the=20 service provider
have PIO options in them.  As they=20 should.


--
james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
member = of=20 technical staff, communications = engineering



*****

The information = transmitted is=20 intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may = contain=20 confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review,=20 retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action = in=20 reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the = intended=20 recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact = the=20 sender and delete the material from all computers.=20 GA622

 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9AF1E.5D4B5645-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 27 13:58:32 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFED03A6A5A for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:58:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.698 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.204, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 crWpYAz9s+Vn for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:58:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EA9C3A6A56 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:58:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnJ8X-00098a-BH for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:58:45 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.70] (helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnJ8R-00097t-IU for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:58:42 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,434,1233532800"; d="scan'208,217";a="162881844" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Mar 2009 20:58:39 +0000 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2RKwcxZ020409; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:58:38 -0700 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2RKwcJE026556; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:58:38 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.40]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:58:38 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9AF1E.CCF733F6" Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:58:37 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA08AB7B0B@crexc41p> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: Acmtn8NXBkiWDxs/Q26RWqIFVoFKpQBc40uQAAJe0UgAAEyW4A== References: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA08AB7B0B@crexc41p> From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" To: "Stark, Barbara" , "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Mar 2009 20:58:38.0361 (UTC) FILETIME=[CD376890:01C9AF1E] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=15171; t=1238187518; x=1239051518; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20comm ents |Sender:=20; bh=ZQvlZX6tWVQXyDtYXti+L2F33JSZYERXBfRRN3c6F3M=; b=DUOVotZly8Dx9RLT77s5w6VFT+1Pyh2/cidrc4+KCpP2p4VRo6LM+b24gq 5IET961kfEnOLp8hIUqek3JNBqJp8AGpcEiwhxtdJS9PdPW9JZcIeccsVYj3 1844/uV93y; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=shemant@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9AF1E.CCF733F6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 QmFyYmFyYSwNCg0KIA0KDQpZb3UgYXJlIGFsc28gYXNraW5nIGZvciB0aGUgaW1wb3NzaWJsZS4g ICBBcyBhIGNhYmxlIG9yIERTTCBTUCwgeW91IGRvbuKAmXQga25vdyB3aGF0IHRoZSBJUHY2IHBy ZWZpeCBteSBJUGhvbmUgZnJvbSBBVCZUIGlzIHVzaW5nIGZvciB0aGUgY2VsbHVsYXIgbmV0d29y az8gIFNvIGhvdyBjYW4gYW55IE1TUiBiZSBkZXZpc2VkIGFuZCBwcm9wYWdhdGVkIGZyb20gdGhl IFNQIHJvdXRlciBzZXJ2aW5nIHRoZSBicm9hZGJhbmQgbW9kZW0gaW4gdGhlIGhvbWUgdG8gc2Vu ZCBhbiBNU1IgZm9yIGEgcHJlZml4IG5vdCBrbm93biB0byB0aGVtPyAgDQoNCiANCg0KT3VyIG5l dyB0ZXh0IGlzIGZpbmUuDQoNCiANCg0KSGVtYW50DQoNCiANCg0KRnJvbTogU3RhcmssIEJhcmJh cmEgW21haWx0bzpiczc2NTJAYXR0LmNvbV0gDQpTZW50OiBGcmlkYXksIE1hcmNoIDI3LCAyMDA5 IDQ6NDQgUE0NClRvOiBXZXMgQmVlYmVlICh3YmVlYmVlKTsgamh3QGFwcGxlLmNvbTsgdjZvcHNA b3BzLmlldGYub3JnDQpDYzogSGVtYW50IFNpbmdoIChzaGVtYW50KQ0KU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IGRy YWZ0LXdiZWViZWUtaXB2Ni1jcGUtcm91dGVyLTA0IGNvbW1lbnRzDQoNCiANCg0KSXQncyBub3Qg Y2xlYXIgdG8gbWUgd2h5IG1hbnVhbCBjb25maWd1cmF0aW9uIGlzIHNwZWNpZmllZCBhcyAqdGhl KiB3YXkgdG8gY29uZmlndXJlIHRoZXNlIHJvdXRlcyAoYWdhaW4sIEkgc2VlIFJBIChSRkMgNDE5 MSkgZnJvbSB0aGUgYWNjZXNzIG5ldHdvcmsgdG8gdGhlIENQRSBSdHIgV0FOIGludGVyZmFjZSBh cyBhIHdheSB0byBjb25maWd1cmUgdGhlIHJvdXRlcykuIEkgcHJvcG9zZSB0aGF0IGlmIGEgQ1BF IFJ0ciBnZXRzIHN1Y2ggcm91dGVzIGZyb20gdGhlIFdBTiB0aGF0IGl0IGF1dG9tYXRpY2FsbHkg cHV0IHRob3NlIHNhbWUgcm91dGUgcHJlZml4ZXMgaW4gaXRzIExBTiBSQXMuIEluIHdoaWNoIGNh c2UgaXQgd291bGQgbm90IGJlIG9mZiBieSBkZWZhdWx0LCBidXQgb24gYnkgZGVmYXVsdCAoaXQg d291bGQgYXV0b21hdGljYWxseSBzZW5kIHNwZWNpZmljIHJvdXRlIGluZm8gaWYgaXQgaGFzIHNw ZWNpZmljIHJvdXRlIGluZm8gdG8gc2VuZCkuDQpCYXJiYXJhDQoNCi0tLS0tIE9yaWdpbmFsIE1l c3NhZ2UgLS0tLS0NCkZyb206IG93bmVyLXY2b3BzQG9wcy5pZXRmLm9yZyA8b3duZXItdjZvcHNA b3BzLmlldGYub3JnPg0KVG86IGphbWVzIHdvb2R5YXR0IDxqaHdAYXBwbGUuY29tPjsgSVB2NiBP cGVyYXRpb25zIDx2Nm9wc0BvcHMuaWV0Zi5vcmc+DQpDYzogSGVtYW50IFNpbmdoIChzaGVtYW50 KSA8c2hlbWFudEBjaXNjby5jb20+DQpTZW50OiBGcmkgTWFyIDI3IDE1OjQwOjA5IDIwMDkNClN1 YmplY3Q6IFJFOiBkcmFmdC13YmVlYmVlLWlwdjYtY3BlLXJvdXRlci0wNCBjb21tZW50cw0KDQpU aGUgbmV3IHRleHQgZm9yIE1TUidzIGlzIGFzIGZvbGxvd3M6DQoNCiI4LjcgTXVsdGktaG9tZWQg SG9zdCBTdXBwb3J0IChNRURJVU0pDQpUaGUgQ1BFIFJvdXRlciBNQVkgc3VwcG9ydCBSRkM0MTkx IG9uIGl0cyBMQU4gaW50ZXJmYWNlcy4gIFNtYWxsDQpjb25zdW1lciBlbWJlZGRlZCBtdWx0aS1o b21lZCBob3N0cyBpbiB0aGUgaG9tZSBtYXkgbm90IGhhdmUNCmNvbmZpZ3VyYWJsZSByb3V0aW5n IHRhYmxlcy4gIFRoZSBDUEUgUm91dGVyIGNhbiBjb21tdW5pY2F0ZSBNb3JlDQpTcGVjaWZpYyBS b3V0ZXMgKE1TUnMpIHRvIHRoZXNlIGhvc3RzIHRvIGFsbG93IHRoZW0gdG8gY2hvb3NlIGENCnBy ZWZlcnJlZCByb3V0ZXIgdG8gc2VuZCB0cmFmZmljIHRvIGZvciB0cmFmZmljIGRlc3RpbmVkIHRv IHNwZWNpZmljDQpwcmVmaXhlcyBjb25maWd1cmVkIHRocm91Z2ggbWFudWFsIGNvbmZpZ3VyYXRp b24uICBBZHZlcnRpc2VtZW50IG9mIE1TUnMNCnRocm91Z2ggUkFzIGlzIHR1cm5lZCBvZmYgYnkg ZGVmYXVsdC4iDQoNCi0gV2VzDQoNCi0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0tDQpGcm9tOiBq YW1lcyB3b29keWF0dCBbbWFpbHRvOmpod0BhcHBsZS5jb21dDQpTZW50OiBXZWRuZXNkYXksIE1h cmNoIDI1LCAyMDA5IDc6MTcgUE0NClRvOiBJUHY2IE9wZXJhdGlvbnMNCkNjOiBIZW1hbnQgU2lu Z2ggKHNoZW1hbnQpOyBXZXMgQmVlYmVlICh3YmVlYmVlKQ0KU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IGRyYWZ0LXdi ZWViZWUtaXB2Ni1jcGUtcm91dGVyLTA0IGNvbW1lbnRzDQoNCk9uIE1hciAyNSwgMjAwOSwgYXQg MTY6MDYsIGphbWVzIHdvb2R5YXR0IHdyb3RlOg0KPg0KPiBQbGVhc2UgbGV0IG1lIGNsYXJpZnkg bXkgcmVtYXJrcyBhbmQgbmFycm93IG15IHJlcXVlc3Qgc29tZXdoYXQsIG5vdw0KPiB0aGF0IEkn dmUgaGFkIGEgY2hhbmNlIHRvIHJldmlldyBtb3JlIG9mIHRoZSBDUEUgUm91dGVyIGRyYWZ0LiAg SSBhbQ0KPiBvbmx5IGludGVyZXN0ZWQgaW4gc3VjaCBSRkMgNDE5MSBtZXNzYWdlcyB3aGVuIGEg dmFsaWQgUElPIGhhcyBiZWVuDQo+IHJlY2VpdmVkIG9uIHRoZSBXQU4gbGluayB3aXRoIEw9MS4g IE5vIG90aGVyIGNhc2VzIGFyZSBpbnRlcmVzdGluZy4NCg0KSSB0YWtlIGl0IGJhY2suICBJdCdz IGludGVyZXN0aW5nIGluIHRoZSBvdGhlciBjYXNlcyBhcyB3ZWxsLiAgVHdvIENQRQ0Kcm91dGVy cyBhdHRhY2hlZCB0byB0aGUgc2FtZSBsaW5rIHdpbGwgZXhjaGFuZ2UgdGhlaXIgcHJlZml4ZXMg d2l0aCBNU1INCmFkdmVydGlzZW1lbnRzIHJlZ2FyZGxlc3Mgb2Ygd2hldGhlciB0aGUgUkFzIGZy b20gdGhlIHNlcnZpY2UgcHJvdmlkZXINCmhhdmUgUElPIG9wdGlvbnMgaW4gdGhlbS4gIEFzIHRo ZXkgc2hvdWxkLg0KDQoNCi0tDQpqYW1lcyB3b29keWF0dCA8amh3QGFwcGxlLmNvbT4NCm1lbWJl ciBvZiB0ZWNobmljYWwgc3RhZmYsIGNvbW11bmljYXRpb25zIGVuZ2luZWVyaW5nDQoNCg0KDQoN CioqKioqDQoNClRoZSBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiB0cmFuc21pdHRlZCBpcyBpbnRlbmRlZCBvbmx5IGZv ciB0aGUgcGVyc29uIG9yIGVudGl0eSB0byB3aGljaCBpdCBpcyBhZGRyZXNzZWQgYW5kIG1heSBj b250YWluIGNvbmZpZGVudGlhbCwgcHJvcHJpZXRhcnksIGFuZC9vciBwcml2aWxlZ2VkIG1hdGVy aWFsLiBBbnkgcmV2aWV3LCByZXRyYW5zbWlzc2lvbiwgZGlzc2VtaW5hdGlvbiBvciBvdGhlciB1 c2Ugb2YsIG9yIHRha2luZyBvZiBhbnkgYWN0aW9uIGluIHJlbGlhbmNlIHVwb24gdGhpcyBpbmZv cm1hdGlvbiBieSBwZXJzb25zIG9yIGVudGl0aWVzIG90aGVyIHRoYW4gdGhlIGludGVuZGVkIHJl Y2lwaWVudCBpcyBwcm9oaWJpdGVkLiBJZiB5b3UgcmVjZWl2ZWQgdGhpcyBpbiBlcnJvciwgcGxl YXNlIGNvbnRhY3QgdGhlIHNlbmRlciBhbmQgZGVsZXRlIHRoZSBtYXRlcmlhbCBmcm9tIGFsbCBj b21wdXRlcnMuIEdBNjIyDQoNCg== ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9AF1E.CCF733F6 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWwgeG1sbnM6dj0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTp2bWwiIHhtbG5zOm89InVy bjpzY2hlbWFzLW1pY3Jvc29mdC1jb206b2ZmaWNlOm9mZmljZSIgeG1sbnM6dz0idXJuOnNjaGVt YXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6d29yZCIgeG1sbnM6bT0iaHR0cDovL3NjaGVtYXMubWlj cm9zb2Z0LmNvbS9vZmZpY2UvMjAwNC8xMi9vbW1sIiB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcv VFIvUkVDLWh0bWw0MCI+DQoNCjxoZWFkPg0KPG1ldGEgaHR0cC1lcXVpdj1Db250ZW50LVR5cGUg Y29udGVudD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij4NCjxtZXRhIG5hbWU9R2VuZXJhdG9y IGNvbnRlbnQ9Ik1pY3Jvc29mdCBXb3JkIDEyIChmaWx0ZXJlZCBtZWRpdW0pIj4NCjx0aXRsZT5S ZTogZHJhZnQtd2JlZWJlZS1pcHY2LWNwZS1yb3V0ZXItMDQgY29tbWVudHM8L3RpdGxlPg0KPHN0 eWxlPg0KPCEtLQ0KIC8qIEZvbnQgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCiBAZm9udC1mYWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQt ZmFtaWx5OiJDYW1icmlhIE1hdGgiOw0KCXBhbm9zZS0xOjIgNCA1IDMgNSA0IDYgMyAyIDQ7fQ0K QGZvbnQtZmFjZQ0KCXtmb250LWZhbWlseTpDYWxpYnJpOw0KCXBhbm9zZS0xOjIgMTUgNSAyIDIg MiA0IDMgMiA0O30NCkBmb250LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6VGFob21hOw0KCXBhbm9zZS0x OjIgMTEgNiA0IDMgNSA0IDQgMiA0O30NCiAvKiBTdHlsZSBEZWZpbml0aW9ucyAqLw0KIHAuTXNv Tm9ybWFsLCBsaS5Nc29Ob3JtYWwsIGRpdi5Nc29Ob3JtYWwNCgl7bWFyZ2luOjBpbjsNCgltYXJn aW4tYm90dG9tOi4wMDAxcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1zaXplOjEyLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiVGlt ZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuIiwic2VyaWYiO30NCmE6bGluaywgc3Bhbi5Nc29IeXBlcmxpbmsNCgl7bXNv LXN0eWxlLXByaW9yaXR5Ojk5Ow0KCWNvbG9yOmJsdWU7DQoJdGV4dC1kZWNvcmF0aW9uOnVuZGVy bGluZTt9DQphOnZpc2l0ZWQsIHNwYW4uTXNvSHlwZXJsaW5rRm9sbG93ZWQNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxl LXByaW9yaXR5Ojk5Ow0KCWNvbG9yOnB1cnBsZTsNCgl0ZXh0LWRlY29yYXRpb246dW5kZXJsaW5l O30NCnANCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXByaW9yaXR5Ojk5Ow0KCW1zby1tYXJnaW4tdG9wLWFsdDphdXRv Ow0KCW1hcmdpbi1yaWdodDowaW47DQoJbXNvLW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b20tYWx0OmF1dG87DQoJbWFy Z2luLWxlZnQ6MGluOw0KCWZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMi4wcHQ7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRpbWVzIE5l dyBSb21hbiIsInNlcmlmIjt9DQpzcGFuLkVtYWlsU3R5bGUxOA0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtdHlwZTpw ZXJzb25hbC1yZXBseTsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiOw0KCWNv bG9yOiMxRjQ5N0Q7fQ0KLk1zb0NocERlZmF1bHQNCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXR5cGU6ZXhwb3J0LW9u bHk7DQoJZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDt9DQpAcGFnZSBTZWN0aW9uMQ0KCXtzaXplOjguNWluIDEx LjBpbjsNCgltYXJnaW46MS4waW4gMS4waW4gMS4waW4gMS4waW47fQ0KZGl2LlNlY3Rpb24xDQoJ e3BhZ2U6U2VjdGlvbjE7fQ0KLS0+DQo8L3N0eWxlPg0KPCEtLVtpZiBndGUgbXNvIDldPjx4bWw+ DQogPG86c2hhcGVkZWZhdWx0cyB2OmV4dD0iZWRpdCIgc3BpZG1heD0iMTAyNiIgLz4NCjwveG1s PjwhW2VuZGlmXS0tPjwhLS1baWYgZ3RlIG1zbyA5XT48eG1sPg0KIDxvOnNoYXBlbGF5b3V0IHY6 ZXh0PSJlZGl0Ij4NCiAgPG86aWRtYXAgdjpleHQ9ImVkaXQiIGRhdGE9IjEiIC8+DQogPC9vOnNo YXBlbGF5b3V0PjwveG1sPjwhW2VuZGlmXS0tPg0KPC9oZWFkPg0KDQo8Ym9keSBsYW5nPUVOLVVT IGxpbms9Ymx1ZSB2bGluaz1wdXJwbGU+DQoNCjxkaXYgY2xhc3M9U2VjdGlvbjE+DQoNCjxwIGNs YXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToi Q2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiOw0KY29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+QmFyYmFyYSw8bzpwPjwvbzpw Pjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQoNCjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXpl OjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiOw0KY29sb3I6IzFGNDk3 RCc+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KDQo8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNw YW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLCJzYW5zLXNl cmlmIjsNCmNvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QnPllvdSBhcmUgYWxzbyBhc2tpbmcgZm9yIHRoZSBpbXBvc3Np YmxlLsKgwqAgQXMgYSBjYWJsZSBvciBEU0wgU1AsDQp5b3UgZG9u4oCZdCBrbm93IHdoYXQgdGhl IElQdjYgcHJlZml4IG15IElQaG9uZSBmcm9tIEFUJmFtcDtUIGlzIHVzaW5nIGZvciB0aGUNCmNl bGx1bGFyIG5ldHdvcms/wqAgU28gaG93IGNhbiBhbnkgTVNSIGJlIGRldmlzZWQgYW5kIHByb3Bh Z2F0ZWQgZnJvbSB0aGUgU1ANCnJvdXRlciBzZXJ2aW5nIHRoZSBicm9hZGJhbmQgbW9kZW0gaW4g dGhlIGhvbWUgdG8gc2VuZCBhbiBNU1IgZm9yIGEgcHJlZml4IG5vdA0Ka25vd24gdG8gdGhlbT/C oCA8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQoNCjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHls ZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiOw0K Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+PG86cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KDQo8cCBjbGFzcz1N c29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGli cmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjsNCmNvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QnPk91ciBuZXcgdGV4dCBpcyBmaW5lLjxv OnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdm b250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7DQpjb2xv cjojMUY0OTdEJz48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQoNCjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05v cm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIs InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiOw0KY29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+SGVtYW50PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9w Pg0KDQo8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9u dC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjsNCmNvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QnPjxvOnA+Jm5i c3A7PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCg0KPGRpdj4NCg0KPGRpdiBzdHlsZT0nYm9yZGVyOm5vbmU7 Ym9yZGVyLXRvcDpzb2xpZCAjQjVDNERGIDEuMHB0O3BhZGRpbmc6My4wcHQgMGluIDBpbiAwaW4n Pg0KDQo8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PGI+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7 Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IlRhaG9tYSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiJz5Gcm9tOjwvc3Bhbj48L2I+PHNwYW4N CnN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUYWhvbWEiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlm Iic+IFN0YXJrLCBCYXJiYXJhDQpbbWFpbHRvOmJzNzY1MkBhdHQuY29tXSA8YnI+DQo8Yj5TZW50 OjwvYj4gRnJpZGF5LCBNYXJjaCAyNywgMjAwOSA0OjQ0IFBNPGJyPg0KPGI+VG86PC9iPiBXZXMg QmVlYmVlICh3YmVlYmVlKTsgamh3QGFwcGxlLmNvbTsgdjZvcHNAb3BzLmlldGYub3JnPGJyPg0K PGI+Q2M6PC9iPiBIZW1hbnQgU2luZ2ggKHNoZW1hbnQpPGJyPg0KPGI+U3ViamVjdDo8L2I+IFJl OiBkcmFmdC13YmVlYmVlLWlwdjYtY3BlLXJvdXRlci0wNCBjb21tZW50czxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9z cGFuPjwvcD4NCg0KPC9kaXY+DQoNCjwvZGl2Pg0KDQo8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PG86cD4m bmJzcDs8L286cD48L3A+DQoNCjxwIHN0eWxlPSdtYXJnaW4tYm90dG9tOjEyLjBwdCc+PHNwYW4g c3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQnPkl0J3Mgbm90IGNsZWFyDQp0byBtZSB3aHkgbWFudWFs IGNvbmZpZ3VyYXRpb24gaXMgc3BlY2lmaWVkIGFzICp0aGUqIHdheSB0byBjb25maWd1cmUgdGhl c2UNCnJvdXRlcyAoYWdhaW4sIEkgc2VlIFJBIChSRkMgNDE5MSkgZnJvbSB0aGUgYWNjZXNzIG5l dHdvcmsgdG8gdGhlIENQRSBSdHIgV0FODQppbnRlcmZhY2UgYXMgYSB3YXkgdG8gY29uZmlndXJl IHRoZSByb3V0ZXMpLiBJIHByb3Bvc2UgdGhhdCBpZiBhIENQRSBSdHIgZ2V0cw0Kc3VjaCByb3V0 ZXMgZnJvbSB0aGUgV0FOIHRoYXQgaXQgYXV0b21hdGljYWxseSBwdXQgdGhvc2Ugc2FtZSByb3V0 ZSBwcmVmaXhlcyBpbg0KaXRzIExBTiBSQXMuIEluIHdoaWNoIGNhc2UgaXQgd291bGQgbm90IGJl IG9mZiBieSBkZWZhdWx0LCBidXQgb24gYnkgZGVmYXVsdA0KKGl0IHdvdWxkIGF1dG9tYXRpY2Fs bHkgc2VuZCBzcGVjaWZpYyByb3V0ZSBpbmZvIGlmIGl0IGhhcyBzcGVjaWZpYyByb3V0ZSBpbmZv DQp0byBzZW5kKS48YnI+DQpCYXJiYXJhPGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KLS0tLS0gT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2Fn ZSAtLS0tLTxicj4NCkZyb206IG93bmVyLXY2b3BzQG9wcy5pZXRmLm9yZyAmbHQ7b3duZXItdjZv cHNAb3BzLmlldGYub3JnJmd0Ozxicj4NClRvOiBqYW1lcyB3b29keWF0dCAmbHQ7amh3QGFwcGxl LmNvbSZndDs7IElQdjYgT3BlcmF0aW9ucw0KJmx0O3Y2b3BzQG9wcy5pZXRmLm9yZyZndDs8YnI+ DQpDYzogSGVtYW50IFNpbmdoIChzaGVtYW50KSAmbHQ7c2hlbWFudEBjaXNjby5jb20mZ3Q7PGJy Pg0KU2VudDogRnJpIE1hciAyNyAxNTo0MDowOSAyMDA5PGJyPg0KU3ViamVjdDogUkU6IGRyYWZ0 LXdiZWViZWUtaXB2Ni1jcGUtcm91dGVyLTA0IGNvbW1lbnRzPGJyPg0KPGJyPg0KVGhlIG5ldyB0 ZXh0IGZvciBNU1IncyBpcyBhcyBmb2xsb3dzOjxicj4NCjxicj4NCiZxdW90OzguNyBNdWx0aS1o b21lZCBIb3N0IFN1cHBvcnQgKE1FRElVTSk8YnI+DQpUaGUgQ1BFIFJvdXRlciBNQVkgc3VwcG9y dCBSRkM0MTkxIG9uIGl0cyBMQU4gaW50ZXJmYWNlcy4mbmJzcDsgU21hbGw8YnI+DQpjb25zdW1l ciBlbWJlZGRlZCBtdWx0aS1ob21lZCBob3N0cyBpbiB0aGUgaG9tZSBtYXkgbm90IGhhdmU8YnI+ DQpjb25maWd1cmFibGUgcm91dGluZyB0YWJsZXMuJm5ic3A7IFRoZSBDUEUgUm91dGVyIGNhbiBj b21tdW5pY2F0ZSBNb3JlPGJyPg0KU3BlY2lmaWMgUm91dGVzIChNU1JzKSB0byB0aGVzZSBob3N0 cyB0byBhbGxvdyB0aGVtIHRvIGNob29zZSBhPGJyPg0KcHJlZmVycmVkIHJvdXRlciB0byBzZW5k IHRyYWZmaWMgdG8gZm9yIHRyYWZmaWMgZGVzdGluZWQgdG8gc3BlY2lmaWM8YnI+DQpwcmVmaXhl cyBjb25maWd1cmVkIHRocm91Z2ggbWFudWFsIGNvbmZpZ3VyYXRpb24uJm5ic3A7IEFkdmVydGlz ZW1lbnQgb2YgTVNSczxicj4NCnRocm91Z2ggUkFzIGlzIHR1cm5lZCBvZmYgYnkgZGVmYXVsdC4m cXVvdDs8YnI+DQo8YnI+DQotIFdlczxicj4NCjxicj4NCi0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0t LS0tPGJyPg0KRnJvbTogamFtZXMgd29vZHlhdHQgWzxhIGhyZWY9Im1haWx0bzpqaHdAYXBwbGUu Y29tIj5tYWlsdG86amh3QGFwcGxlLmNvbTwvYT5dPGJyPg0KU2VudDogV2VkbmVzZGF5LCBNYXJj aCAyNSwgMjAwOSA3OjE3IFBNPGJyPg0KVG86IElQdjYgT3BlcmF0aW9uczxicj4NCkNjOiBIZW1h bnQgU2luZ2ggKHNoZW1hbnQpOyBXZXMgQmVlYmVlICh3YmVlYmVlKTxicj4NClN1YmplY3Q6IFJl OiBkcmFmdC13YmVlYmVlLWlwdjYtY3BlLXJvdXRlci0wNCBjb21tZW50czxicj4NCjxicj4NCk9u IE1hciAyNSwgMjAwOSwgYXQgMTY6MDYsIGphbWVzIHdvb2R5YXR0IHdyb3RlOjxicj4NCiZndDs8 YnI+DQomZ3Q7IFBsZWFzZSBsZXQgbWUgY2xhcmlmeSBteSByZW1hcmtzIGFuZCBuYXJyb3cgbXkg cmVxdWVzdCBzb21ld2hhdCwgbm93PGJyPg0KJmd0OyB0aGF0IEkndmUgaGFkIGEgY2hhbmNlIHRv IHJldmlldyBtb3JlIG9mIHRoZSBDUEUgUm91dGVyIGRyYWZ0LiZuYnNwOyBJIGFtPGJyPg0KJmd0 OyBvbmx5IGludGVyZXN0ZWQgaW4gc3VjaCBSRkMgNDE5MSBtZXNzYWdlcyB3aGVuIGEgdmFsaWQg UElPIGhhcyBiZWVuPGJyPg0KJmd0OyByZWNlaXZlZCBvbiB0aGUgV0FOIGxpbmsgd2l0aCBMPTEu Jm5ic3A7IE5vIG90aGVyIGNhc2VzIGFyZSBpbnRlcmVzdGluZy48YnI+DQo8YnI+DQpJIHRha2Ug aXQgYmFjay4mbmJzcDsgSXQncyBpbnRlcmVzdGluZyBpbiB0aGUgb3RoZXIgY2FzZXMgYXMgd2Vs bC4mbmJzcDsgVHdvDQpDUEU8YnI+DQpyb3V0ZXJzIGF0dGFjaGVkIHRvIHRoZSBzYW1lIGxpbmsg d2lsbCBleGNoYW5nZSB0aGVpciBwcmVmaXhlcyB3aXRoIE1TUjxicj4NCmFkdmVydGlzZW1lbnRz IHJlZ2FyZGxlc3Mgb2Ygd2hldGhlciB0aGUgUkFzIGZyb20gdGhlIHNlcnZpY2UgcHJvdmlkZXI8 YnI+DQpoYXZlIFBJTyBvcHRpb25zIGluIHRoZW0uJm5ic3A7IEFzIHRoZXkgc2hvdWxkLjxicj4N Cjxicj4NCjxicj4NCi0tPGJyPg0KamFtZXMgd29vZHlhdHQgJmx0O2pod0BhcHBsZS5jb20mZ3Q7 PGJyPg0KbWVtYmVyIG9mIHRlY2huaWNhbCBzdGFmZiwgY29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbnMgZW5naW5lZXJp bmc8YnI+DQo8YnI+DQo8YnI+DQo8L3NwYW4+PG86cD48L286cD48L3A+DQoNCjxwPjxzcGFuIHN0 eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUYWhvbWEiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjtj b2xvcjpibGFjayc+KioqKio8L3NwYW4+PHNwYW4NCnN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2Zv bnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUYWhvbWEiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjtjb2xvcjpibHVlJz48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwv c3Bhbj48L3A+DQoNCjxwPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5 OiJUYWhvbWEiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjtjb2xvcjpibGFjayc+VGhlDQppbmZvcm1hdGlvbiB0cmFu c21pdHRlZCBpcyBpbnRlbmRlZCBvbmx5IGZvciB0aGUgcGVyc29uIG9yIGVudGl0eSB0byB3aGlj aCBpdA0KaXMgYWRkcmVzc2VkIGFuZCBtYXkgY29udGFpbiBjb25maWRlbnRpYWwsIHByb3ByaWV0 YXJ5LCBhbmQvb3IgcHJpdmlsZWdlZA0KbWF0ZXJpYWwuIEFueSByZXZpZXcsIHJldHJhbnNtaXNz aW9uLCBkaXNzZW1pbmF0aW9uIG9yIG90aGVyIHVzZSBvZiwgb3IgdGFraW5nDQpvZiBhbnkgYWN0 aW9uIGluIHJlbGlhbmNlIHVwb24gdGhpcyBpbmZvcm1hdGlvbiBieSBwZXJzb25zIG9yIGVudGl0 aWVzIG90aGVyDQp0aGFuIHRoZSBpbnRlbmRlZCByZWNpcGllbnQgaXMgcHJvaGliaXRlZC4gSWYg eW91IHJlY2VpdmVkIHRoaXMgaW4gZXJyb3IsDQpwbGVhc2UgY29udGFjdCB0aGUgc2VuZGVyIGFu ZCBkZWxldGUgdGhlIG1hdGVyaWFsIGZyb20gYWxsIGNvbXB1dGVycy4gR0E2MjI8L3NwYW4+PHNw YW4NCnN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUYWhvbWEiLCJzYW5zLXNl cmlmIjtjb2xvcjpibHVlJz48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQoNCjwvZGl2Pg0KDQo8L2Jv ZHk+DQoNCjwvaHRtbD4NCg== ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9AF1E.CCF733F6-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 27 14:02:38 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 109AB3A6A56 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:02:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 v2w0Q+QhpbtW for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:02:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C2D03A687C for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:02:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnJCA-0009WR-Gq for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 21:02:30 +0000 Received: from [2001:1888:0:1:230:48ff:fe5b:3b50] (helo=outgoing01.lava.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnJC3-0009VD-15 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 21:02:26 +0000 Received: from [2001:1888::a:214:51ff:fe29:1e4e] (unknown [IPv6:2001:1888:0:a:214:51ff:fe29:1e4e]) by outgoing01.lava.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B581ED22E9; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:02:09 -1000 (HST) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:02:09 -1000 (HST) From: Antonio Querubin To: "Stark, Barbara" cc: swmike@swm.pp.se, v6ops@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments In-Reply-To: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA08AB7B02@crexc41p> Message-ID: References: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA08AB7B02@crexc41p> User-Agent: Alpine 1.00 (OSX 882 2007-12-20) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Stark, Barbara wrote: > That's an interesting use case, with definite application, but I wonder > if it's really compelling in the case of the simple CPE Router. > > When CPE Routers are cascaded, the cascaded router is generally directly > connected to the upstream router, so that there would be no added > efficiencies from this. I don't think it's that uncommon. I've seen households, small businesses, churches, etc that have multiple routers/switches/WAP devices scattered throughout the home or their buildings/offices. While these types of deployments do not represent a very large percentage of how these devices are being used, I think we'll see more and more of these devices being cascaded together just for the addition of ports or access points. The cost difference between a switch-only device vs a router is so minimal that many consumers opt for the latter even though all they really need is another switch in most cases. Few of these entities have IT staff to advise them otherwise, nevermind efficiency. Last time I browsed the network section of a computer store, I saw as many wireless devices with built-in routers vs just standalone WAPs/switches. Same for the firewall/NAT devices. Changing the topic slightly, it seems to me that one of the big challenges for the CPER is determining how the prefix sub-delegation behaviour should be when you do have cascaded devices. Current IPv4 devices just avoid the issue by doing NAT upon NAT. If IPv6 frees users from limits on addresses and subnets then the CPER behaviour should be designed to automatically handle the partitioning of the SP-delegated /56 or /48 among 2 or more downstream CPERs. Should we try to spell out a recommended behaviour in more detail or are we gonna leave that up to vendor implementation? Antonio Querubin whois: AQ7-ARIN From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 27 14:24:59 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 096A73A6A9B for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:24:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.393 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.393 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.498, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 hQOqU0wRX+QL for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:24:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB5543A6A93 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:24:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnJXH-000CAk-6w for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 21:24:19 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.117] (helo=sj-iport-6.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnJXC-000CA0-0m for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 21:24:16 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,434,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="275561573" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Mar 2009 21:24:06 +0000 Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (sj-core-4.cisco.com [171.68.223.138]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2RLO5ec025570; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:24:05 -0700 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2RLNnKS017599; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 21:24:04 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.40]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:24:04 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:24:03 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: AcmvH5RQP4AG/19tSXKYaCM0ie0tEAAAiY6g References: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA08AB7B02@crexc41p> From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" To: "Antonio Querubin" , "Stark, Barbara" Cc: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Mar 2009 21:24:04.0251 (UTC) FILETIME=[5AB7BEB0:01C9AF22] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1132; t=1238189045; x=1239053045; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20comm ents |Sender:=20; bh=lufNoDyluPHy0+iVW3JQ2YQbjFZqk59CsAiiqrNAVGM=; b=AucFdkfCOCMFANy0u3rL7i9Fctjo+9XDNB+6c1oPWLxRv+t29RgdgsOVhk crzZjtf83UwKFUCvRjQbk2Sf14mxurQFneLWkfsKo0CybO/Um8xU/CXjc305 zmYn5YyROf; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=shemant@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: >Changing the topic slightly, it seems to me that one of the big challenges=20 >for the CPER is determining how the prefix sub-delegation behaviour should=20 >be when you do have cascaded devices. Current IPv4 devices just avoid the=20 >issue by doing NAT upon NAT. If IPv6 frees users from limits on addresses=20 >and subnets then the CPER behaviour should be designed to automatically >handle the partitioning of the SP-delegated /56 or /48 among 2 or more=20 >downstream CPERs. Should we try to spell out a recommended behaviour in=20 >more detail or are we gonna leave that up to vendor implementation? Please see emails in the v6ops mailer that transpired were very early that discussed this issue. We close the issue and recommended using DHCPv6 server in the CPER and not use NAT like IPV4. Please read the cascaded router section 6 of our draft and we have recommended sub-delegation. Of, course the deployment must also support DHCPv6 PD. It is intended that the sub-delegation is automatic in the CPER but we don't plan to spell in out - it's left to vendor implementation. =20 Hemant From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 27 14:30:59 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F22853A6A9B for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:30:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.873 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.873 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.379, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 WtodsNhSTN22 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:30:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45F933A6855 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:30:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnJde-000CmG-Sr for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 21:30:54 +0000 Received: from [216.82.242.3] (helo=mail121.messagelabs.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnJdY-000ClN-1T for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 21:30:51 +0000 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: bs7652@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-14.tower-121.messagelabs.com!1238189445!29780661!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.0.0; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.53] Received: (qmail 11765 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2009 21:30:45 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.53) by server-14.tower-121.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 27 Mar 2009 21:30:45 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n2RLUijF021064; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:30:44 -0400 Received: from 01GAF5142010623.AD.BLS.COM (01GAF5142010623.ad.bls.com [139.76.131.87]) by mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with SMTP id n2RLUdw6021008; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:30:39 -0400 Received: from 01NC27689010625.AD.BLS.COM ([90.144.44.200]) by 01GAF5142010623.AD.BLS.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:30:38 -0400 Received: from 01NC27689010641.AD.BLS.COM ([90.144.44.103]) by 01NC27689010625.AD.BLS.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:30:38 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.3168 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9AF23.453ED0E5" Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:30:34 -0400 Message-ID: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0DA1B60A@crexc41p> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments thread-index: Acmtn8NXBkiWDxs/Q26RWqIFVoFKpQBc40uQAAJe0UgAAEyW4AAAWqbQ References: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA08AB7B0B@crexc41p> From: "Stark, Barbara" To: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" , "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Mar 2009 21:30:38.0298 (UTC) FILETIME=[45968BA0:01C9AF23] Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9AF23.453ED0E5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable You don=E2=80=99t think that AT&T the DSL SP will know what AT&T = wireless might be doing with a device that=E2=80=99s connected to AT&T = the application service provider? J Oh ye of little faith. Have you = never seen the movie =E2=80=9CThe President=E2=80=99s Analyst=E2=80=9D? =20 But no, in the case you describe, the cellular network that provides = this iPhone with 3G connectivity would need to send route info in its = RA, specifying the prefixes of its walled garden, to the iPhone. If the = DSL connection is just a plain vanilla connection, there would be no = route info coming at the iPhone from its Wi-Fi interface. The DSL = provider doesn=E2=80=99t need to know about the 3G connection =E2=80=93 = only the iPhone knows. Barbara =20 From: Hemant Singh (shemant) [mailto:shemant@cisco.com]=20 Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 4:59 PM To: Stark, Barbara; Wes Beebee (wbeebee); jhw@apple.com; = v6ops@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments =20 Barbara, =20 You are also asking for the impossible. As a cable or DSL SP, you = don=E2=80=99t know what the IPv6 prefix my IPhone from AT&T is using for = the cellular network? So how can any MSR be devised and propagated from = the SP router serving the broadband modem in the home to send an MSR for = a prefix not known to them? =20 =20 Our new text is fine. =20 Hemant =20 From: Stark, Barbara [mailto:bs7652@att.com]=20 Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 4:44 PM To: Wes Beebee (wbeebee); jhw@apple.com; v6ops@ops.ietf.org Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant) Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments =20 It's not clear to me why manual configuration is specified as *the* way = to configure these routes (again, I see RA (RFC 4191) from the access = network to the CPE Rtr WAN interface as a way to configure the routes). = I propose that if a CPE Rtr gets such routes from the WAN that it = automatically put those same route prefixes in its LAN RAs. In which = case it would not be off by default, but on by default (it would = automatically send specific route info if it has specific route info to = send). Barbara ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org To: james woodyatt ; IPv6 Operations Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant) Sent: Fri Mar 27 15:40:09 2009 Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments The new text for MSR's is as follows: "8.7 Multi-homed Host Support (MEDIUM) The CPE Router MAY support RFC4191 on its LAN interfaces. Small consumer embedded multi-homed hosts in the home may not have configurable routing tables. The CPE Router can communicate More Specific Routes (MSRs) to these hosts to allow them to choose a preferred router to send traffic to for traffic destined to specific prefixes configured through manual configuration. Advertisement of MSRs through RAs is turned off by default." - Wes -----Original Message----- From: james woodyatt [mailto:jhw@apple.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:17 PM To: IPv6 Operations Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); Wes Beebee (wbeebee) Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments On Mar 25, 2009, at 16:06, james woodyatt wrote: > > Please let me clarify my remarks and narrow my request somewhat, now > that I've had a chance to review more of the CPE Router draft. I am > only interested in such RFC 4191 messages when a valid PIO has been > received on the WAN link with L=3D1. No other cases are interesting. I take it back. It's interesting in the other cases as well. Two CPE routers attached to the same link will exchange their prefixes with MSR advertisements regardless of whether the RAs from the service provider have PIO options in them. As they should. -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, communications engineering ***** The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to = which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or = privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other = use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by = persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If = you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the = material from all computers. GA622 ***** The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to = which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or = privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other = use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by = persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If = you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the = material from all computers. GA623 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9AF23.453ED0E5 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

You don=E2=80=99t think that AT&T the DSL SP will = know what AT&T wireless might be doing with a device that=E2=80=99s connected to = AT&T the application service provider? J Oh ye of little faith. Have you never seen the movie = =E2=80=9CThe President=E2=80=99s Analyst=E2=80=9D?

 

But no, in the case you describe, the cellular network = that provides this iPhone with 3G connectivity would need to send route info in its = RA, specifying the prefixes of its walled garden, to the iPhone. If the DSL connection = is just a plain vanilla connection, there would be no route info coming at the = iPhone from its Wi-Fi interface. The DSL provider doesn=E2=80=99t need to know = about the 3G connection =E2=80=93 only the iPhone knows.

Barbara

 

From:= Hemant = Singh (shemant) [mailto:shemant@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 4:59 PM
To: Stark, Barbara; Wes Beebee (wbeebee); jhw@apple.com; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 = comments

 

Barbara,

 

You are also asking for the impossible.   As a = cable or DSL SP, you don=E2=80=99t know what the IPv6 prefix my IPhone from = AT&T is using for the cellular network?  So how can any MSR be devised and = propagated from the SP router serving the broadband modem in the home to send an = MSR for a prefix not known to them? 

 

Our new text is fine.

 

Hemant

 

From:= Stark, = Barbara [mailto:bs7652@att.com]
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 4:44 PM
To: Wes Beebee (wbeebee); jhw@apple.com; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 = comments

 

It's = not clear to me why manual configuration is specified as *the* way to configure = these routes (again, I see RA (RFC 4191) from the access network to the CPE = Rtr WAN interface as a way to configure the routes). I propose that if a CPE Rtr = gets such routes from the WAN that it automatically put those same route = prefixes in its LAN RAs. In which case it would not be off by default, but on by = default (it would automatically send specific route info if it has specific route = info to send).
Barbara

----- Original Message -----
From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
To: james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>; IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant) <shemant@cisco.com>
Sent: Fri Mar 27 15:40:09 2009
Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

The new text for MSR's is as follows:

"8.7 Multi-homed Host Support (MEDIUM)
The CPE Router MAY support RFC4191 on its LAN interfaces.  = Small
consumer embedded multi-homed hosts in the home may not have
configurable routing tables.  The CPE Router can communicate = More
Specific Routes (MSRs) to these hosts to allow them to choose a
preferred router to send traffic to for traffic destined to specific
prefixes configured through manual configuration.  Advertisement of = MSRs
through RAs is turned off by default."

- Wes

-----Original Message-----
From: james woodyatt [mailto:jhw@apple.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:17 PM
To: IPv6 Operations
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

On Mar 25, 2009, at 16:06, james woodyatt wrote:
>
> Please let me clarify my remarks and narrow my request somewhat, = now
> that I've had a chance to review more of the CPE Router = draft.  I am
> only interested in such RFC 4191 messages when a valid PIO has = been
> received on the WAN link with L=3D1.  No other cases are = interesting.

I take it back.  It's interesting in the other cases as well.  = Two CPE
routers attached to the same link will exchange their prefixes with = MSR
advertisements regardless of whether the RAs from the service = provider
have PIO options in them.  As they should.


--
james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
member of technical staff, communications engineering

= *****<= o:p>

= The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to = which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or = privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or = taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities = other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in = error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. = GA622<= o:p>

*****

The information = transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is = addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged = material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or = taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or = entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you = received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the = material from all computers. GA623

 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9AF23.453ED0E5-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 27 15:51:55 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FDA228C11B for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:51:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.677 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.677 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.183, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 0Vit3E4QwNY4 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:51:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ACB63A6A6B for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 15:51:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnKr0-000Jaf-PO for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:48:46 +0000 Received: from [64.102.122.149] (helo=rtp-iport-2.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnKqv-000JZh-2Q for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:48:43 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,435,1233532800"; d="scan'208,217";a="40446409" Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 27 Mar 2009 22:48:38 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2RMmcWF013975; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:48:38 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2RMmcYn009771; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:48:38 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.40]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:48:38 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9AF2E.2B120E4E" Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:48:36 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0DA1B60A@crexc41p> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: Acmtn8NXBkiWDxs/Q26RWqIFVoFKpQBc40uQAAJe0UgAAEyW4AAAWqbQAANQ2qA= References: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA08AB7B0B@crexc41p> <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0DA1B60A@crexc41p> From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" To: "Stark, Barbara" , "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Mar 2009 22:48:38.0740 (UTC) FILETIME=[2B595140:01C9AF2E] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=13225; t=1238194118; x=1239058118; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20comm ents |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Stark,=20Barbara=22=20,=0A=20=20= 20=20=20=20=20=20=22Wes=20Beebee=20(wbeebee)=22=20,=20,=0A=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20; bh=/4Leeoke1/hE9pjv8NFp9NupH/WFg7K4WOVMCOkKeG0=; b=lJltAUFzn8UF79tzEUtzwFH8+Zc+sZHs/MdThzyJnWvc+jcOVTSlUKY7CU xUZ0Cr7NqVKQ1HG0pLItMUqHIrjfQzZ6liXYZyB8shOmKEIqbQIocM0Q4a1i KFbhJoWY/V; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=shemant@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9AF2E.2B120E4E Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 QmFyYmFyYSwgDQoNCiANCg0KUGxlYXNlIHNlZSBpbiBsaW5lIGJlbG93Lg0KDQogDQoNCkZyb206 IFN0YXJrLCBCYXJiYXJhIFttYWlsdG86YnM3NjUyQGF0dC5jb21dIA0KU2VudDogRnJpZGF5LCBN YXJjaCAyNywgMjAwOSA1OjMxIFBNDQpUbzogSGVtYW50IFNpbmdoIChzaGVtYW50KTsgV2VzIEJl ZWJlZSAod2JlZWJlZSk7IGpod0BhcHBsZS5jb207IHY2b3BzQG9wcy5pZXRmLm9yZw0KU3ViamVj dDogUkU6IGRyYWZ0LXdiZWViZWUtaXB2Ni1jcGUtcm91dGVyLTA0IGNvbW1lbnRzDQoNCiANCg0K PllvdSBkb27igJl0IHRoaW5rIHRoYXQgQVQmVCB0aGUgRFNMIFNQIHdpbGwga25vdyB3aGF0IEFU JlQgd2lyZWxlc3MgbWlnaHQgYmUgZG9pbmcgd2l0aCBhIGRldmljZSB0aGF04oCZcyBjb25uZWN0 ZWQgdG8gQVQmVCB0aGUgYXBwbGljYXRpb24gc2VydmljZSBwcm92aWRlcj8gSiBPaCB5ZSBvZiBs aXR0bGUgZmFpdGguICAgSGF2ZSB5b3UgbmV2ZXIgc2VlbiB0aGUgbW92aWUg4oCcVGhlIFByZXNp ZGVudOKAmXMgQW5hbHlzdOKAnT8NCg0KIA0KDQpNb3ZpZSByZWNvbW1lbmRhdGlvbnMgYXJlIHZl cnkgbXVjaCBhcHByZWNpYXRlZCwgZXNwZWNpYWxseSBvbiBhIEZyaWRheSBKIGFuZCBoaWxhcmlv dXMgb25lcyBhdCB0aGF0LCBpbiBhbnkgY29udGV4dCDigJMgSSBoYXZlIG5vdCBzZWVuIHRoaXMg bW92aWUuICAgSXQgd291bGQgYmUgaW50ZXJlc3RpbmcgdG8gc2VlIEFUJlTigJlzIG5ldHdvcmsg Zm9yIERTTCBhbmQgd2lyZWxlc3MgZGF0YSBzZXJ2aWNlcyBhcyB0byBob3cgc3VjaCBsYXJnZSBz dWJzY3JpYmVyIHNldHMgYXJlIG1lcmdlZCBmb3Igcm91dGVkIGRvbWFpbnMgYW5kIGFsc28gaG93 IHJvdXRpbmcgcHJlZml4ZXMgYXJlIHByb3BhZ2F0ZWQgIGJldHdlZW4gdGhlaXIgRFNMIGFuZCBj ZWxsdWxhciBkYXRhIGxpbmtzLiAgIEkgYWxzbyBzYWlkLCBjYWJsZSBvciBEU0wuICBJZiB0aGUg aG9tZSBoYXMgY2FibGUgYnJvYWRiYW5kLCB0aGUgQ29tY2FzdCBjYWJsZSBkb2VzbuKAmXQga25v dyBhYm91dCBBVCZUIHdpcmVsZXNzIHByZWZpeGVzLg0KDQogDQoNCj5CdXQgbm8sIGluIHRoZSBj YXNlIHlvdSBkZXNjcmliZSwgdGhlIGNlbGx1bGFyIG5ldHdvcmsgdGhhdCBwcm92aWRlcyB0aGlz IGlQaG9uZSB3aXRoIDNHIGNvbm5lY3Rpdml0eSB3b3VsZCBuZWVkIHRvIHNlbmQgcm91dGUgaW5m byBpbiBpdHMgUkEsIHNwZWNpZnlpbmcgdGhlIHByZWZpeGVzIG9mIGl0cyB3YWxsZWQgZ2FyZGVu LCB0byB0aGUgaVBob25lLiBJZiB0aGUgRFNMIGNvbm5lY3Rpb24gaXMganVzdCBhIHBsYWluIHZh bmlsbGEgY29ubmVjdGlvbiwgdGhlcmUgd291bGQgPmJlIG5vIHJvdXRlIGluZm8gY29taW5nIGF0 IHRoZSBpUGhvbmUgZnJvbSBpdHMgV2ktRmkgaW50ZXJmYWNlLiBUaGUgRFNMIHByb3ZpZGVyIGRv ZXNu4oCZdCBuZWVkIHRvIGtub3cgYWJvdXQgdGhlIDNHIGNvbm5lY3Rpb24g4oCTIG9ubHkgdGhl IGlQaG9uZSBrbm93cy4NCg0KIA0KDQpIbW0sICBpbiBjYWJsZSBtb2RlbSBJUHY0IGFjY2VzcyBp biBteSBob21lLCBteSBpVG91Y2ggYWNxdWlyZXMgYW4gSVB2NCBhZGRyZXNzIGZyb20gdGhlIHdp cmVsZXNzIHJvdXRlciBpbiBteSBob21lIGJlaGluZCB0aGUgY2FibGUgbW9kZW0uICBJIHN1cmYg dGhlIEludGVybmV0IHdpdGggdGhlIGlUb3VjaCBqdXN0IGZpbmUuICAgU28gd2hlbiB0aGlzIGhv bWUgbmV0d29yayBtb3ZlcyB0byBJUHY2IGluIGZ1dHVyZSwgdGhlIHdpcmVsZXNzIHNlZ21lbnQg b2YgbXkgaG9tZSByb3V0ZXIgaGFzIGdvdCB0byBzZW5kIGFuIFJBIGZvciBhbnkgSVB2NiB3aXJl bGVzcyBkZXZpY2UgaW4gdGhlIGhvbWUgdG8gYWNxdWlyZSBhbiBJUHY2IGFkZHJlc3MgaW5jbHVk aW5nIHRoZSBpVG91Y2guICAgIA0KDQogDQoNCkhhdmUgYSBnb29kIHdlZWtlbmQgdG8gYWxsLg0K DQogDQoNCkhlbWFudA0KDQo= ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9AF2E.2B120E4E Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 PGh0bWwgeG1sbnM6dj0idXJuOnNjaGVtYXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTp2bWwiIHhtbG5zOm89InVy bjpzY2hlbWFzLW1pY3Jvc29mdC1jb206b2ZmaWNlOm9mZmljZSIgeG1sbnM6dz0idXJuOnNjaGVt YXMtbWljcm9zb2Z0LWNvbTpvZmZpY2U6d29yZCIgeG1sbnM6bT0iaHR0cDovL3NjaGVtYXMubWlj cm9zb2Z0LmNvbS9vZmZpY2UvMjAwNC8xMi9vbW1sIiB4bWxucz0iaHR0cDovL3d3dy53My5vcmcv VFIvUkVDLWh0bWw0MCI+DQoNCjxoZWFkPg0KPG1ldGEgaHR0cC1lcXVpdj1Db250ZW50LVR5cGUg Y29udGVudD0idGV4dC9odG1sOyBjaGFyc2V0PXV0Zi04Ij4NCjxtZXRhIG5hbWU9R2VuZXJhdG9y IGNvbnRlbnQ9Ik1pY3Jvc29mdCBXb3JkIDEyIChmaWx0ZXJlZCBtZWRpdW0pIj4NCjx0aXRsZT5S ZTogZHJhZnQtd2JlZWJlZS1pcHY2LWNwZS1yb3V0ZXItMDQgY29tbWVudHM8L3RpdGxlPg0KPHN0 eWxlPg0KPCEtLQ0KIC8qIEZvbnQgRGVmaW5pdGlvbnMgKi8NCiBAZm9udC1mYWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQt ZmFtaWx5OldpbmdkaW5nczsNCglwYW5vc2UtMTo1IDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwIDAgMCAwO30NCkBmb250 LWZhY2UNCgl7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbWJyaWEgTWF0aCI7DQoJcGFub3NlLTE6MiA0IDUgMyA1 IDQgNiAzIDIgNDt9DQpAZm9udC1mYWNlDQoJe2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OkNhbGlicmk7DQoJcGFub3Nl LTE6MiAxNSA1IDIgMiAyIDQgMyAyIDQ7fQ0KQGZvbnQtZmFjZQ0KCXtmb250LWZhbWlseTpUYWhv bWE7DQoJcGFub3NlLTE6MiAxMSA2IDQgMyA1IDQgNCAyIDQ7fQ0KIC8qIFN0eWxlIERlZmluaXRp b25zICovDQogcC5Nc29Ob3JtYWwsIGxpLk1zb05vcm1hbCwgZGl2Lk1zb05vcm1hbA0KCXttYXJn aW46MGluOw0KCW1hcmdpbi1ib3R0b206LjAwMDFwdDsNCglmb250LXNpemU6MTIuMHB0Ow0KCWZv bnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUaW1lcyBOZXcgUm9tYW4iLCJzZXJpZiI7fQ0KYTpsaW5rLCBzcGFuLk1zb0h5 cGVybGluaw0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtcHJpb3JpdHk6OTk7DQoJY29sb3I6Ymx1ZTsNCgl0ZXh0LWRl Y29yYXRpb246dW5kZXJsaW5lO30NCmE6dmlzaXRlZCwgc3Bhbi5Nc29IeXBlcmxpbmtGb2xsb3dl ZA0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtcHJpb3JpdHk6OTk7DQoJY29sb3I6cHVycGxlOw0KCXRleHQtZGVjb3Jh dGlvbjp1bmRlcmxpbmU7fQ0KcA0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtcHJpb3JpdHk6OTk7DQoJbXNvLW1hcmdp bi10b3AtYWx0OmF1dG87DQoJbWFyZ2luLXJpZ2h0OjBpbjsNCgltc28tbWFyZ2luLWJvdHRvbS1h bHQ6YXV0bzsNCgltYXJnaW4tbGVmdDowaW47DQoJZm9udC1zaXplOjEyLjBwdDsNCglmb250LWZh bWlseToiVGltZXMgTmV3IFJvbWFuIiwic2VyaWYiO30NCnNwYW4uRW1haWxTdHlsZTE4DQoJe21z by1zdHlsZS10eXBlOnBlcnNvbmFsOw0KCWZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJp ZiI7DQoJY29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RDt9DQpzcGFuLkVtYWlsU3R5bGUxOQ0KCXttc28tc3R5bGUtdHlw ZTpwZXJzb25hbDsNCglmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiOw0KCWNvbG9y OiMxRjQ5N0Q7fQ0Kc3Bhbi5FbWFpbFN0eWxlMjANCgl7bXNvLXN0eWxlLXR5cGU6cGVyc29uYWwt cmVwbHk7DQoJZm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjsNCgljb2xvcjojMUY0 OTdEO30NCi5Nc29DaHBEZWZhdWx0DQoJe21zby1zdHlsZS10eXBlOmV4cG9ydC1vbmx5Ow0KCWZv bnQtc2l6ZToxMC4wcHQ7fQ0KQHBhZ2UgU2VjdGlvbjENCgl7c2l6ZTo4LjVpbiAxMS4waW47DQoJ bWFyZ2luOjEuMGluIDEuMGluIDEuMGluIDEuMGluO30NCmRpdi5TZWN0aW9uMQ0KCXtwYWdlOlNl Y3Rpb24xO30NCi0tPg0KPC9zdHlsZT4NCjwhLS1baWYgZ3RlIG1zbyA5XT48eG1sPg0KIDxvOnNo YXBlZGVmYXVsdHMgdjpleHQ9ImVkaXQiIHNwaWRtYXg9IjEwMjYiIC8+DQo8L3htbD48IVtlbmRp Zl0tLT48IS0tW2lmIGd0ZSBtc28gOV0+PHhtbD4NCiA8bzpzaGFwZWxheW91dCB2OmV4dD0iZWRp dCI+DQogIDxvOmlkbWFwIHY6ZXh0PSJlZGl0IiBkYXRhPSIxIiAvPg0KIDwvbzpzaGFwZWxheW91 dD48L3htbD48IVtlbmRpZl0tLT4NCjwvaGVhZD4NCg0KPGJvZHkgbGFuZz1FTi1VUyBsaW5rPWJs dWUgdmxpbms9cHVycGxlPg0KDQo8ZGl2IGNsYXNzPVNlY3Rpb24xPg0KDQo8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29O b3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmki LCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjsNCmNvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QnPkJhcmJhcmEsIDxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFu PjwvcD4NCg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0 O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7DQpjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEJz48bzpw PiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQoNCjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHls ZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiOw0K Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+UGxlYXNlIHNlZSBpbiBsaW5lIGJlbG93LjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFu PjwvcD4NCg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0 O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7DQpjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEJz48bzpw PiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQoNCjxkaXY+DQoNCjxkaXYgc3R5bGU9J2JvcmRlcjpu b25lO2JvcmRlci10b3A6c29saWQgI0I1QzRERiAxLjBwdDtwYWRkaW5nOjMuMHB0IDBpbiAwaW4g MGluJz4NCg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxiPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTAu MHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJUYWhvbWEiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIic+RnJvbTo8L3NwYW4+PC9iPjxz cGFuDQpzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjEwLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiVGFob21hIiwic2Fucy1z ZXJpZiInPiBTdGFyaywgQmFyYmFyYQ0KW21haWx0bzpiczc2NTJAYXR0LmNvbV0gPGJyPg0KPGI+ U2VudDo8L2I+IEZyaWRheSwgTWFyY2ggMjcsIDIwMDkgNTozMSBQTTxicj4NCjxiPlRvOjwvYj4g SGVtYW50IFNpbmdoIChzaGVtYW50KTsgV2VzIEJlZWJlZSAod2JlZWJlZSk7IGpod0BhcHBsZS5j b207DQp2Nm9wc0BvcHMuaWV0Zi5vcmc8YnI+DQo8Yj5TdWJqZWN0OjwvYj4gUkU6IGRyYWZ0LXdi ZWViZWUtaXB2Ni1jcGUtcm91dGVyLTA0IGNvbW1lbnRzPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0K DQo8L2Rpdj4NCg0KPC9kaXY+DQoNCjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpw PjwvcD4NCg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0 O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7DQpjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEJz4mZ3Q7 PC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJp Iiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7DQpjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEJz5Zb3UgZG9u4oCZdCB0aGluayB0aGF0IEFU JmFtcDtUIHRoZSBEU0wgU1Agd2lsbCBrbm93IHdoYXQgQVQmYW1wO1QNCndpcmVsZXNzIG1pZ2h0 IGJlIGRvaW5nIHdpdGggYSBkZXZpY2UgdGhhdOKAmXMgY29ubmVjdGVkIHRvIEFUJmFtcDtUIHRo ZQ0KYXBwbGljYXRpb24gc2VydmljZSBwcm92aWRlcj8gPC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250 LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5Og0KV2luZ2RpbmdzO2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QnPko8L3Nw YW4+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6DQoiQ2FsaWJyaSIs InNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QnPiBPaCB5ZSBvZiBsaXR0bGUgZmFpdGguIDwvc3Bh bj48c3Bhbg0Kc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLCJz YW5zLXNlcmlmIjtjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEJz7CoMKgPC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuDQpzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1z aXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5 N0QnPkhhdmUNCnlvdSBuZXZlciBzZWVuIHRoZSBtb3ZpZSDigJxUaGUgUHJlc2lkZW504oCZcyBB bmFseXN04oCdPzwvc3Bhbj48c3Bhbg0Kc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1p bHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjtjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEJz48bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bh bj48L3A+DQoNCjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBw dDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiOw0KY29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+PG86 cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KDQo8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5 bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjsN CmNvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QnPk1vdmllIHJlY29tbWVuZGF0aW9ucyBhcmUgdmVyeSBtdWNoIGFwcHJl Y2lhdGVkLCBlc3BlY2lhbGx5IG9uIGENCkZyaWRheSA8L3NwYW4+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQt c2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6V2luZ2RpbmdzO2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QnPko8L3NwYW4+ PHNwYW4NCnN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fu cy1zZXJpZiI7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+IGFuZA0KaGlsYXJpb3VzIG9uZXMgYXQgdGhhdCwgaW4g YW55IGNvbnRleHQg4oCTIEkgaGF2ZSBub3Qgc2VlbiB0aGlzIG1vdmllLiDCoMKgSXQgd291bGQN CmJlIGludGVyZXN0aW5nIHRvIHNlZSBBVCZhbXA7VOKAmXMgbmV0d29yayBmb3IgRFNMIGFuZCB3 aXJlbGVzcyBkYXRhIHNlcnZpY2VzIGFzDQp0byBob3cgc3VjaCBsYXJnZSBzdWJzY3JpYmVyIHNl dHMgYXJlIG1lcmdlZCBmb3Igcm91dGVkIGRvbWFpbnMgYW5kIGFsc28gaG93DQpyb3V0aW5nIHBy ZWZpeGVzIGFyZSBwcm9wYWdhdGVkIMKgYmV0d2VlbiB0aGVpciBEU0wgYW5kIGNlbGx1bGFyIGRh dGEgbGlua3MuwqAgwqBJDQphbHNvIHNhaWQsIGNhYmxlIG9yIERTTC7CoCBJZiB0aGUgaG9tZSBo YXMgY2FibGUgYnJvYWRiYW5kLCB0aGUgQ29tY2FzdCBjYWJsZQ0KZG9lc27igJl0IGtub3cgYWJv dXQgQVQmYW1wO1Qgd2lyZWxlc3MgcHJlZml4ZXMuPG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KDQo8 cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1p bHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjsNCmNvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QnPjxvOnA+Jm5ic3A7PC9v OnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNp emU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7DQpjb2xvcjojMUY0 OTdEJz4mZ3Q7PC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5 OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7DQpjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEJz5CdXQgbm8sIGluIHRoZSBj YXNlIHlvdSBkZXNjcmliZSwgdGhlIGNlbGx1bGFyIG5ldHdvcmsgdGhhdA0KcHJvdmlkZXMgdGhp cyBpUGhvbmUgd2l0aCAzRyBjb25uZWN0aXZpdHkgd291bGQgbmVlZCB0byBzZW5kIHJvdXRlIGlu Zm8gaW4gaXRzDQpSQSwgc3BlY2lmeWluZyB0aGUgcHJlZml4ZXMgb2YgaXRzIHdhbGxlZCBnYXJk ZW4sIHRvIHRoZSBpUGhvbmUuIElmIHRoZSBEU0wNCmNvbm5lY3Rpb24gaXMganVzdCBhIHBsYWlu IHZhbmlsbGEgY29ubmVjdGlvbiwgdGhlcmUgd291bGQgPC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuDQpzdHlsZT0nZm9u dC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOiMx RjQ5N0QnPiZndDs8L3NwYW4+PHNwYW4NCnN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFt aWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7Y29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+YmUgbm8NCnJvdXRlIGlu Zm8gY29taW5nIGF0IHRoZSBpUGhvbmUgZnJvbSBpdHMgV2ktRmkgaW50ZXJmYWNlLiBUaGUgRFNM IHByb3ZpZGVyDQpkb2VzbuKAmXQgbmVlZCB0byBrbm93IGFib3V0IHRoZSAzRyBjb25uZWN0aW9u IOKAkyBvbmx5IHRoZSBpUGhvbmUga25vd3MuPC9zcGFuPjxzcGFuDQpzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXpl OjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiO2NvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0Qn PjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9zcGFuPjwvcD4NCg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxl PSdmb250LXNpemU6MTEuMHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7DQpj b2xvcjojMUY0OTdEJz48bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQoNCjxwIGNsYXNzPU1z b05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJy aSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiOw0KY29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+SG1tLCDCoGluIGNhYmxlIG1vZGVtIElQ djQgYWNjZXNzIGluIG15IGhvbWUsIG15IGlUb3VjaCBhY3F1aXJlcw0KYW4gSVB2NCBhZGRyZXNz IGZyb20gdGhlIHdpcmVsZXNzIHJvdXRlciBpbiBteSBob21lIGJlaGluZCB0aGUgY2FibGUgbW9k ZW0uwqAgSQ0Kc3VyZiB0aGUgSW50ZXJuZXQgd2l0aCB0aGUgaVRvdWNoIGp1c3QgZmluZS4gwqDC oFNvIHdoZW4gdGhpcyBob21lIG5ldHdvcmsgbW92ZXMNCnRvIElQdjYgaW4gZnV0dXJlLCB0aGUg d2lyZWxlc3Mgc2VnbWVudCBvZiBteSBob21lIHJvdXRlciBoYXMgZ290IHRvIHNlbmQgYW4gUkEN CmZvciBhbnkgSVB2NiB3aXJlbGVzcyBkZXZpY2UgaW4gdGhlIGhvbWUgdG8gYWNxdWlyZSBhbiBJ UHY2IGFkZHJlc3MgaW5jbHVkaW5nDQp0aGUgaVRvdWNoLsKgwqDCoCA8bzpwPjwvbzpwPjwvc3Bh bj48L3A+DQoNCjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBzdHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBw dDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYiOw0KY29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+PG86 cD4mbmJzcDs8L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KDQo8cCBjbGFzcz1Nc29Ob3JtYWw+PHNwYW4gc3R5 bGU9J2ZvbnQtc2l6ZToxMS4wcHQ7Zm9udC1mYW1pbHk6IkNhbGlicmkiLCJzYW5zLXNlcmlmIjsN CmNvbG9yOiMxRjQ5N0QnPkhhdmUgYSBnb29kIHdlZWtlbmQgdG8gYWxsLjxvOnA+PC9vOnA+PC9z cGFuPjwvcD4NCg0KPHAgY2xhc3M9TXNvTm9ybWFsPjxzcGFuIHN0eWxlPSdmb250LXNpemU6MTEu MHB0O2ZvbnQtZmFtaWx5OiJDYWxpYnJpIiwic2Fucy1zZXJpZiI7DQpjb2xvcjojMUY0OTdEJz48 bzpwPiZuYnNwOzwvbzpwPjwvc3Bhbj48L3A+DQoNCjxwIGNsYXNzPU1zb05vcm1hbD48c3BhbiBz dHlsZT0nZm9udC1zaXplOjExLjBwdDtmb250LWZhbWlseToiQ2FsaWJyaSIsInNhbnMtc2VyaWYi Ow0KY29sb3I6IzFGNDk3RCc+SGVtYW50PG86cD48L286cD48L3NwYW4+PC9wPg0KDQo8L2Rpdj4N Cg0KPC9ib2R5Pg0KDQo8L2h0bWw+DQo= ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9AF2E.2B120E4E-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 27 16:15:55 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7472D3A6C71 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:15:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.852 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.852 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.358, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 XtTPeve1OmBC for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:15:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E07C83A6B8A for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:15:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnLGb-000Lxh-F8 for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 23:15:13 +0000 Received: from [216.82.250.147] (helo=mail129.messagelabs.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnLGV-000Lwl-KF for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 23:15:10 +0000 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: bs7652@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-4.tower-129.messagelabs.com!1238195705!27104417!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.0.0; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.53] Received: (qmail 3313 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2009 23:15:06 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.53) by server-4.tower-129.messagelabs.com with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 27 Mar 2009 23:15:06 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n2RNF5lk017283; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:15:05 -0400 Received: from 01GAF5142010621.AD.BLS.COM (01GAF5142010621.ad.bls.com [139.76.131.79]) by mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with SMTP id n2RNExQx017235; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:15:00 -0400 Received: from 01NC27689010626.AD.BLS.COM ([90.144.44.201]) by 01GAF5142010621.AD.BLS.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:14:59 -0400 Received: from 01NC27689010641.AD.BLS.COM ([90.144.44.103]) by 01NC27689010626.AD.BLS.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:14:59 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.3168 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9AF31.D9037CBC" Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 19:14:57 -0400 Message-ID: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0DA1B62D@crexc41p> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments thread-index: Acmtn8NXBkiWDxs/Q26RWqIFVoFKpQBc40uQAAJe0UgAAErakAAEmpuw References: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA08AB7B0B@crexc41p> From: "Stark, Barbara" To: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" , , CC: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Mar 2009 23:14:59.0044 (UTC) FILETIME=[D9489240:01C9AF31] Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9AF31.D9037CBC Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This is non-normative language, in the abstract of RFC 4191. Normative references to RFC 4191 purely apply to the protocol, and do not apply to non-normative statements in that RFC about how one might or might not configure the elements of that protocol. The goal of not having too many routes advertised is worthy, and does need to be given serious consideration in the design of any algorithm that would derive the routes in an automated manner. Barbara =20 From: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) [mailto:wbeebee@cisco.com]=20 Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 4:56 PM To: Stark, Barbara; jhw@apple.com; v6ops@ops.ietf.org Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant) Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments =20 In the Abstract, RFC 4191 says explicitly: =20 "The preference values and specific routes advertised to hosts require administrative configuration; they are not automatically derived from routing tables." =20 Further, throughout RFC 4191, they give examples that illustrate why they make this statement. The problems (briefly) are stability of routes, more than 17 routes getting advertised (too many routes), etc.=20 =20 - Wes =20 ________________________________ From: Stark, Barbara [mailto:bs7652@att.com]=20 Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 4:44 PM To: Wes Beebee (wbeebee); jhw@apple.com; v6ops@ops.ietf.org Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant) Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments It's not clear to me why manual configuration is specified as *the* way to configure these routes (again, I see RA (RFC 4191) from the access network to the CPE Rtr WAN interface as a way to configure the routes). I propose that if a CPE Rtr gets such routes from the WAN that it automatically put those same route prefixes in its LAN RAs. In which case it would not be off by default, but on by default (it would automatically send specific route info if it has specific route info to send). Barbara ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org To: james woodyatt ; IPv6 Operations Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant) Sent: Fri Mar 27 15:40:09 2009 Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments The new text for MSR's is as follows: "8.7 Multi-homed Host Support (MEDIUM) The CPE Router MAY support RFC4191 on its LAN interfaces. Small consumer embedded multi-homed hosts in the home may not have configurable routing tables. The CPE Router can communicate More Specific Routes (MSRs) to these hosts to allow them to choose a preferred router to send traffic to for traffic destined to specific prefixes configured through manual configuration. Advertisement of MSRs through RAs is turned off by default." - Wes -----Original Message----- From: james woodyatt [mailto:jhw@apple.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:17 PM To: IPv6 Operations Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); Wes Beebee (wbeebee) Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments On Mar 25, 2009, at 16:06, james woodyatt wrote: > > Please let me clarify my remarks and narrow my request somewhat, now > that I've had a chance to review more of the CPE Router draft. I am > only interested in such RFC 4191 messages when a valid PIO has been > received on the WAN link with L=3D1. No other cases are interesting. I take it back. It's interesting in the other cases as well. Two CPE routers attached to the same link will exchange their prefixes with MSR advertisements regardless of whether the RAs from the service provider have PIO options in them. As they should. -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, communications engineering ***** The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. GA622 ***** The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to = which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or = privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other = use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by = persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If = you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the = material from all computers. GA621 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9AF31.D9037CBC Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

This is non-normative language, in the abstract of RFC = 4191. Normative references to RFC 4191 purely apply to the protocol, and do not apply to non-normative statements in that RFC about how one might or might not = configure the elements of that protocol. The goal of not having too many routes advertised is worthy, and does need to be given serious consideration in = the design of any algorithm that would derive the routes in an automated = manner.

Barbara

 

From:= Wes Beebee (wbeebee) [mailto:wbeebee@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 4:56 PM
To: Stark, Barbara; jhw@apple.com; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 = comments

 

In the Abstract, RFC 4191 says = explicitly:

 

"The preference values and specific routes advertised = to hosts require administrative configuration; they are not automatically derived = from routing tables."

 

Further, throughout RFC 4191, they give examples that = illustrate why they make this statement.  The problems (briefly) are = stability of routes, more than 17 routes getting advertised (too many routes), = etc. 

 

- Wes

 

From: Stark, Barbara = [mailto:bs7652@att.com]
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 4:44 PM
To: Wes Beebee (wbeebee); jhw@apple.com; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 = comments

It's = not clear to me why manual configuration is specified as *the* way to configure = these routes (again, I see RA (RFC 4191) from the access network to the CPE = Rtr WAN interface as a way to configure the routes). I propose that if a CPE Rtr = gets such routes from the WAN that it automatically put those same route = prefixes in its LAN RAs. In which case it would not be off by default, but on by = default (it would automatically send specific route info if it has specific = route info to send).
Barbara

----- Original Message -----
From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
To: james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>; IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant) <shemant@cisco.com>
Sent: Fri Mar 27 15:40:09 2009
Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

The new text for MSR's is as follows:

"8.7 Multi-homed Host Support (MEDIUM)
The CPE Router MAY support RFC4191 on its LAN interfaces.  = Small
consumer embedded multi-homed hosts in the home may not have
configurable routing tables.  The CPE Router can communicate = More
Specific Routes (MSRs) to these hosts to allow them to choose a
preferred router to send traffic to for traffic destined to specific
prefixes configured through manual configuration.  Advertisement of = MSRs
through RAs is turned off by default."

- Wes

-----Original Message-----
From: james woodyatt [mailto:jhw@apple.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:17 PM
To: IPv6 Operations
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

On Mar 25, 2009, at 16:06, james woodyatt wrote:
>
> Please let me clarify my remarks and narrow my request somewhat, = now
> that I've had a chance to review more of the CPE Router = draft.  I am
> only interested in such RFC 4191 messages when a valid PIO has = been
> received on the WAN link with L=3D1.  No other cases are = interesting.

I take it back.  It's interesting in the other cases as well.  = Two CPE
routers attached to the same link will exchange their prefixes with = MSR
advertisements regardless of whether the RAs from the service = provider
have PIO options in them.  As they should.


--
james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
member of technical staff, communications engineering


= *****<= o:p>

= The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to = which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or = privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or = taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities = other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in = error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. = GA622<= o:p>

*****

The information = transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is = addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged = material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or = taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or = entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you = received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the = material from all computers. GA621

 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9AF31.D9037CBC-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Fri Mar 27 16:17:26 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9904328C11B for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:17:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.775 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.775 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.881, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_BAYES_5x7=0.6, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 9BxBZEg7KweI for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:17:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B12A3A6C52 for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:17:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnLIx-000MB3-9M for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 23:17:39 +0000 Received: from [17.254.13.23] (helo=mail-out4.apple.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnLIm-000M9y-Op for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 23:17:34 +0000 Received: from relay10.apple.com (relay10.apple.com [17.128.113.47]) by mail-out4.apple.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E3995C1CEEE; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:17:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay10.apple.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by relay10.apple.com (Symantec Brightmail Gateway) with ESMTP id 4014228067; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:17:28 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: 1180712f-a5964bb0000012d3-77-49cd5e876357 Received: from [17.151.78.152] (unknown [17.151.78.152]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay10.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id B772328058; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:17:27 -0700 (PDT) Cc: IPv6 Operations Message-Id: <8A73BD21-20F7-4463-8FC2-80180F2E3693@apple.com> From: james woodyatt To: Keith Moore In-Reply-To: <49CD3C12.7080105@earthlink.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-1-43125906 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: comments on draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security-04 Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:17:27 -0700 References: <49CD3C12.7080105@earthlink.net> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: --Apple-Mail-1-43125906 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit everyone-- I personally invited Keith Moore to comment on the subject of draft- ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security, and he graciously sent me the following response, but I think he inadvertently neglected to Cc the working group. [I'm including the entire text of his comments.] My comments are included inline. On Mar 27, 2009, at 13:50, Keith Moore wrote: > this is from a single pass through the document, and I'll admit to not > being well-focused when trying to review a document while sitting in > WG meetings. but these are the notes I took while reading it: > > section 2, middle of page 4: > > It should be noted that NAT for IPv6 is both strictly forbidden by > the standards documents and strongly deprecated by Internet > operators. > > really? or is this just wishful thinking? You're right. I confess to being poorly informed when I wrote that. I've since learned that no such prohibition, in fact, exists. > section 2.1: > > In particular, packets with end-to- > end network security and routing extension headers for mobility are > expected to pass Internet gateways freely. > > interesting. so as an application developer, if I want a protocol to > go through a firewall by default, I can just wrap it in IPsec or > mobileIP? Yes. > (and can I do this without actually implementing IPsec or mobileIP?) Yes. There is no way for the residential gateway to test if your IPsec or MIP6 implementation complies with the standard. For IPsec, there just simply no way to know whether the SA really exists and/or what security parameters were negotiated, if any. For MIP6, I admit, the design team may not have considered all the angles. It's possible that a gateway might be able to impose some sanity on mobility that we didn't consider. I'm open to suggestions. > section 2.2: > > gateways MUST > impede Teredo tunnels by blocking clients from learning their > mapped > addresses and ports in the qualification procedure described in > sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 of [RFC4380]. > > mumble. the fact that a gateway supports IPv6 access of some kind > doesn't > mean that the IPv6 is enabled or working. so I don't think the > gateway > should block Teredo by default. it seems like the thing to do is to > impose the same filters on Teredo traffic that are imposed on native > IPv6 > traffic. This isn't an oversight, and it was the subject of some debate on the working group list at the time, so I'd invite you to open further debate in the working group on the topic. The design team interpreted the Teredo automatic sunset provision a bit broadly, I'll admit, but we thought it was important to discourage actively the use of Teredo when a more appropriate IPv6 service is *configured*. If Teredo would provide better service than the configured service, then we thought it would be reasonable to require the administrator to change the configuration to disable the default IPv6 service. > section 3.1: > > R3: Packets bearing deprecated extension headers prior to their > first > upper-layer-protocol header MUST NOT be forwarded or transmitted on > any interface. In particular, all packets with routing extension > header type 0 [RFC2460] preceding the first upper-layer-protocol > header MUST NOT be forwarded. > > I agree with the intent, but have an issue with the way that this is > worded. The problem is that the set of deprecated headers can change > over time, causing a previously conforming implementation to become > non-conforming. Easiest fix is to make the first MUST NOT into a > SHOULD > NOT. (It wouldn't hurt to add an explanation as to why it's a > SHOULD NOT.) > The latter MUST NOT can stay as is. An excellent suggestion. > R4: Outbound packets MUST NOT be forwarded if the source address in > their outer IPv6 header does not have a unicast prefix assigned for > use by globally reachable nodes on the interior network. > > Again, (mostly) agree with the intent, have a problem with the way > it's > stated. How does the gateway reliably know whether the prefix is > "assigned > for use by globally reachable nodes on the interior network"? What do > you mean by "assigned for use ..."? Are you talking about an IANA > assignment > or a local assignment (say of a ULA)? Is this a requirement that > might > change over time as IANA assigns new prefixes? Or something that > needs to > be configured at the gateway? > > At the least, I think the wording is ambiguous here. If you mean an > IANA > assignment, say so, and make it a SHOULD NOT because it can change > over time. Hmm. This could use clarification, yes. What I mean by assigned: either manually or automatically configured. Would it make more sense if I just changed the word "assigned" to "configured?" > R4: Inbound packets MUST NOT be forwarded if the source address in > their outer IPv6 header has a global unicast prefix assigned for > use > by globally reachable nodes on the interior network. > > *** note: there are two R4s. Yuck. There are. > (does this thwart Mobile IPv6?) I'll check and fix if so. > R5: Packets MAY be discarded if the source and/or destination > address > in the outer IPv6 header is a unique local address. By DEFAULT, > gateways SHOULD NOT forward packets across unique local address > scope > boundaries. > > Seems ambiguous. How does the router know if the packet is crossing a > ULA scope boundary? It's not as if a ULA is inherently confined to > the > "inside" of the router. Don't assume that the outside of the router > is > the public IPv6 network. > > Also the first sentence seems to give the router > license to arbitrarily discard packets just because the packet uses a > ULA. This needs to be configurable and the router needs to honor its > configuration. It might be that a reasonable default would be to drop > such packets (on the theory that most consumers won't be using ULAs > and > those that do will know enough to enable them) but I can't confidently > state that for all use cases. If some ISP wants to distribute CPE > boxes > that make some use of ULAs, should this document preclude that? > > Maybe: a) packets with src/dest ULA addresses SHOULD be discarded by > default > b) this behavior MUST be configurable > but as for how best to configure it, I'm not sure. maybe be able to > explicitly > permit src or dest ULAs that match any of a list of prefix/netmasks. Good grief, you're right. That was badly worded. I think you captured the intent. I'll rewrite. Remember, we're talking about residential gateway routers attached to a service provider uplink. Other routers in a routed residential network may need to have different behaviors, but it seems like a good default is to keep the ULAs confined to residential networks. Absolutely, this MUST be a configurable option. I think it ought to be sufficient to allow the user to configure their gateway not to confine ULA addresses. > R6: By DEFAULT, inbound non-recursive DNS queries received on > exterior interfaces MUST NOT be processed by any integrated DNS > proxy > resolving server. > > emphatically agree. (I'd like to make similar restriction for > outbound, > as I've lost way too much hair due to broken DNS proxies in SOHO > gateways.) > In general, interception proxies are evil and should not be used. > > section 3.2.1: > > Residential IPv6 gateways are not expected to prohibit the use of > applications to be developed using future upper-layer transport > protocols. In particular, transport protocols not otherwise > discussed in subsequent sections of this document are expected to > be > treated consistently, i.e. as having connection-free semantics > and no > special requirements to inspect the transport headers. > > This is interesting. I understand that you're trying to permit > deployment > of new transport protocols, but from a security perspective I don't > know > why an unknown transport protocol should get less filtering than > that for > UDP. So I'm a bit uneasy with this text but I don't know how to > tweak it > to make it better. > > I do think there's a need to be able to configure the router to > explicitly > pass any transport protocol. > > *** > In general about firewall state - if the firewall is colocated with > NAT, > you want the lifetime of the firewall state associated with a flow > to be > the same as the lifetime of the NAT binding associated with the flow. > That might seem obvious but I don't think it really is. > > section 3.2.3: > > R18: Where an IPv6 prefix is advertised on an interior interface > alongside an IPv4 private address [RFC1918] and IPv4 Internet > service > is provided with NAT [RFC4787], the Teredo qualification procedure > (see section 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 of [RFC4380]) for clients in the > interior MUST be prohibited by the IPv4/NAT stateful filter. This > SHOULD be done by blocking outbound UDP initiations to port 3544, > the > port reserved by IANA for Teredo servers. > > - seems like the MUST should refer to the default behavior. it > should be > possible to override it. See above remarks. This seems a question worth asking the working group. > - are the criteria correct? What does the IPv4 private address have > to > do with it? I suppose the phrase "alongside an IPv4 private address [RFC1918]" is useless verbiage. > does the IPv6 prefix have to be advertised by the same > gateway that implements the IPv4 NAT, or can it be advertised > elsewhere? > what if that prefix is not a global prefix but instead a ULA that > presumably isn't globally routeable? Ah, yes. The intent here could be more clear. > - again it seems like the thing to do is not to block Teredo, but > impose > the same filtering for Teredo that is imposed for native IPv6. We considered that. I wonder what the sense of the working group is now. > *** > I'm thinking that maybe every rule should be stated as follows: > - what's the default behavior? MUST or SHOULD? > - to what extent, and what degree of granularity, is the gateway > required > to make this behavior configurable? > > *** > I'm also thinking there's a need for balance between default IPv4 > behavior and default IPv6 behavior. We should not favor IPv4 over > IPv6. > Nor should IPv6 be seen as a way to bypass IPv4 restrictions, > unless there's > a technical justification for it (e.g. it's much harder to do port > scanning > in IPv6 because the address space is sparse, so countermeasures > for IPv4 > might not be appropriate for IPv6) Down this road lies a quagmire of trouble related to discussions that seem to be lying dormant in the wake of RFC 4864. > section 3.2.5: > > Residential IPv6 gateways are not expected to prohibit the use of > virtual private networks in residential usage scenarios. > > R23: In their DEFAULT operating mode, IPv6 gateways MUST NOT > prohibit > the forwarding, to and from legitimate node addresses, with upper > layer protocol of type IP version 6, and SHOULD NOT prohibit the > forwarding of other tunneled networking protocols commonly used for > virtual private networking, e.g. IP version 4, Generic Routing > Encapsulation, etcetera. > > For IP-in-IP tunneling, should the default restrictions on the inner > packet > be the same as the restrictions on outer layer packet? The design team considered that and decided it was unnecessary. We regarded the establishment of a tunnel, even by manual configuration, as morally equivalent to the solicitation of traffic through the tunnel, and therefore not subject to the simple security policy intended to block unsolicited flows. > section 3.3.1: > > Peer-to-peer applications use an alternate method of connection > initiation termed simultaneous-open (Fig. 8, [RFC0793]) to traverse > stateful filters. In the simultaneous-open mode of operation, both > peers send SYN packets for the same TCP connection. > > I'd say "Some peer-to-peer applications..." Okay. > I'm glad you mention simultaneous open, though I'm not sure how it > affects > firewall operation. The firewall is still not going to permit an > inbound > SYN packet unless it has first seen an outbound SYN packet. I > guess the > firewall should not block an inbound SYN packet if it has recently > seen an > outbound SYN packet for the same flow. > > It is possible to reconstruct enough of the state of a TCP > connection > to allow forwarding between an interior and exterior node even when > the filter starts operating after TCP enters the established state. > In this case, because the filter has not seen the TCP window-scale > option, it is not possible for the filter to enforce the TCP window > invariant by dropping out-of-window segments. > > R25: The TCP window invariant MUST NOT be enforced on connections > for > which the filter did not detect whether the window-scale option > (see > [RFC1323]) was sent in the 3-way handshake or simultaneous open. > > Mumble. I think you're talking about how the gateway should handle > flows that were already present (or may have already been present) > before > a filter was imposed, and that the treatment of this topic seems a > lot broader > than dealing with TCP window negotiation. e.g. is there a > requirement that > the firewall permit inbound packets on flows for which it didn't see > the > outgoing SYN because the filter was enabled after the SYN was sent? This requirement was inserted because we wanted to be explicit about making sure that loose-state matching for TCP isn't broken by buggy window scale tracking and sequence number modulation. > (and for that matter, can the gateway reasonably assume it is the only > path between the endpoints?) Yes, this is an assumption about simple residential gateways. We do not consider multihomed residential networks. > A stateful filter can allow an existing state record to be reused > by > an externally initiated connection if its security policy permits. > Several different policies are possible as described in "Network > Address Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP > [RFC4787] and extended in "NAT Behaviorial Requirements for TCP" > [RFC5382]. > > R26: If application transparency is most important, then a stateful > packet filter SHOULD have "Endpoint independent filter" behavior > for > TCP. If a more stringent filtering behavior is most important, > then > a filter SHOULD have "Address dependent filtering" behavior. The > filtering behavior MAY be an option configurable by the network > administrator, and it MAY be independent of the filtering behavior > for UDP and other protocols. > > I think the requirement should be stronger: > MUST implement endpoint independent filtering and this MUST be the > default. > MAY implement address dependent filtering and this MUST NOT be the > default. I would agree with you, but I don't know what the rest of the working group thinks. This language came from the BEHAVE drafts for TCP, and I don't remember it being terribly controversial in the design team discussions. Perhaps the working group feels differently than we do. > address dependent filtering breaks applications. I know. Some people like that. It breaks malicious applications. > R27: A gateway MUST NOT signal an error for an unsolicited inbound > SYN packet for at least 6 seconds after the packet is received. If > during this interval the gateway receives and forwards an outbound > SYN for the connection, then the gateway MUST discard the original > unsolicited inbound SYN packet without signaling an error. > Otherwise, the gateway SHOULD send an ICMP Destination Unreachable > error, code 1 (administratively prohibited) for the original SYN-- > unless sending any response violates the security policy of the > network administrator. > > I think that gateways MUST send ICMP destination unreachable by > default, > MUST wait at least 6 seconds before sending it (and abandon sending it > if it's seen a SYN or SYN-ACK in the other direction) and MAY have an > option to disable sending ICMP unreachable. Agree. This language should be cleaned up that way. > R31: Gateways MUST implement a protocol to permit applications to > solicit inbound traffic without advance knowledge of the > addresses of > exterior nodes with which they expect to communicate. > > I really think we need an IETF standard for this, and it needs to work > with both NATs and firewalls. I'm less convinced the need for this is urgent, and I disagree that we need one protocol that works with both translators and filters. For IPv6 translators, e.g. NAT64, I'm beginning to think that what we really need is to resurrect RSIP. For IPv6 stateful filters, like CPE simple security, I proposed a method: ALD. A reference to it is in the draft. (That draft has quietly expired, because I've been sorta hoping the need for it would wither away, but if that's yet more of my trademark wishful thinking, I'll drag myself back into revising it.) -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, communications engineering --Apple-Mail-1-43125906 Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
this is from a single pass = through the document, and I'll admit to not
being well-focused when = trying to review a document while sitting in
WG meetings.  but = these are the notes I took while reading it:

section 2, middle of = page 4:

   It should be noted that NAT for IPv6 is both = strictly forbidden by
   the standards documents and = strongly deprecated by Internet
   = operators. 

really?  or is this just wishful = thinking?

You're right. =  I confess to being poorly informed when I wrote that.  I've = since learned that no such prohibition, in fact, = exists.

section 2.1:

=    In particular, packets with end-to-
   end = network security and routing extension headers for mobility are
=    expected to pass Internet gateways freely.

= interesting.  so as an application developer, if I want a protocol = to
go through a firewall by default, I can just wrap it in IPsec or = mobileIP?

Yes. =  

(and can I do this without = actually implementing IPsec or = mobileIP?)

Yes.  There = is no way for the residential gateway to test if your IPsec or MIP6 = implementation complies with the standard.  For IPsec, there just = simply no way to know whether the SA really exists and/or what security = parameters were negotiated, if any.  For MIP6, I admit, the design = team may not have considered all the angles.  It's possible that a = gateway might be able to impose some sanity on mobility that we didn't = consider.

I'm open to = suggestions.

section = 2.2:

   gateways MUST
   impede Teredo = tunnels by blocking clients from learning their mapped
   = addresses and ports in the qualification procedure described in
=    sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 of [RFC4380].

= mumble.  the fact that a gateway supports IPv6 access of some kind = doesn't
mean that the IPv6 is enabled or working.  so I don't = think the gateway
should block Teredo by default.  it seems = like the thing to do is to
impose the same filters on Teredo = traffic that are imposed on native IPv6
= traffic.

This isn't an = oversight, and it was the subject of some debate on the working group = list at the time, so I'd invite you to open further debate in the = working group on the topic.

The design team = interpreted the Teredo automatic sunset provision a bit broadly, I'll = admit, but we thought it was important to discourage actively the use of = Teredo when a more appropriate IPv6 service is *configured*.  If = Teredo would provide better service than the configured service, then we = thought it would be reasonable to require the administrator to change = the configuration to disable the default IPv6 = service.

section 3.1:

=    R3: Packets bearing deprecated extension headers prior to = their first
   upper-layer-protocol header MUST NOT be = forwarded or transmitted on
   any interface.  In = particular, all packets with routing extension
   header = type 0 [RFC2460] preceding the first upper-layer-protocol
=    header MUST NOT be forwarded.

I agree with the = intent, but have an issue with the way that this is
worded.  = The problem is that the set of deprecated headers can change
over = time, causing a previously conforming implementation to become
= non-conforming.  Easiest fix is to make the first MUST NOT into a = SHOULD
NOT.  (It wouldn't hurt to add an explanation as to why = it's a SHOULD NOT.)
The latter MUST NOT can stay as = is.

An excellent = suggestion.

=    R4: Outbound packets MUST NOT be forwarded if the source = address in
   their outer IPv6 header does not have a = unicast prefix assigned for
   use by globally reachable = nodes on the interior network.

Again, (mostly) agree with the = intent, have a problem with the way it's
stated. How does the = gateway reliably know whether the prefix is "assigned
for use by = globally reachable nodes on the interior network"?  What do
you = mean by "assigned for use ..."?  Are you talking about an IANA = assignment
or a local assignment (say of a ULA)?  Is this a = requirement that might
change over time as IANA assigns new = prefixes?  Or something that needs to
be configured at the = gateway?

At the least, I think the wording is ambiguous = here.  If you mean an IANA
assignment, say so, and make it a = SHOULD NOT because it can change over = time.

Hmm.  This could = use clarification, yes.  What I mean by assigned: either manually = or automatically configured.  Would it make more sense if I just = changed the word "assigned" to "configured?"

   = R4: Inbound packets MUST NOT be forwarded if the source address in
=    their outer IPv6 header has a global unicast prefix = assigned for use
   by globally reachable nodes on the = interior network.

*** note: there are two = R4s.

Yuck.  There = are.

(does this thwart Mobile = IPv6?)

I'll check and fix = if so.

=    R5: Packets MAY be discarded if the source and/or = destination address
   in the outer IPv6 header is a = unique local address.  By DEFAULT,
   gateways SHOULD = NOT forward packets across unique local address scope
   = boundaries.

Seems ambiguous.  How does the router know if = the packet is crossing a
ULA scope boundary?  It's not as if a = ULA is inherently confined to the
"inside" of the router.  = Don't assume that the outside of the router is
the public IPv6 = network. 

Also the = first sentence seems to give the router
license to arbitrarily = discard packets just because the packet uses a 
ULA.  This = needs to be configurable and the router needs to honor = its
configuration.  It might be that a reasonable default would = be to drop
such packets (on the theory that most consumers won't be = using ULAs and
those that do will know enough to enable them) but I = can't confidently
state that for all use cases.  If some ISP = wants to distribute CPE boxes
that make some use of ULAs, should this = document preclude that?

Maybe: a) packets with src/dest ULA = addresses SHOULD be discarded by = default
       b) this behavior MUST be = configurable
but as for how best to configure it, I'm not sure.  = maybe be able to explicitly
permit src or dest ULAs that match any of = a list of prefix/netmasks.

Good = grief, you're right.  That was badly worded.  I think you = captured the intent.  I'll rewrite.  Remember, we're talking = about residential gateway routers attached to a service provider uplink. =  Other routers in a routed residential network may need to have = different behaviors, but it seems like a good default is to keep the = ULAs confined to residential networks.  Absolutely, this MUST be a = configurable option.  I think it ought to be sufficient to allow = the user to configure their gateway not to confine ULA = addresses.

=    R6: By DEFAULT, inbound non-recursive DNS queries received = on
   exterior interfaces MUST NOT be processed by any = integrated DNS proxy
   resolving server.

= emphatically agree.  (I'd like to make similar restriction for = outbound,
as I've lost way too much hair due to broken DNS proxies = in SOHO gateways.)
In general, interception proxies are evil and = should not be used.

section 3.2.1:

   = Residential IPv6 gateways are not expected to prohibit the use of
=    applications to be developed using future upper-layer = transport
   protocols.  In particular, transport = protocols not otherwise
   discussed in subsequent = sections of this document are expected to be
   treated = consistently, i.e. as having connection-free semantics and no
=    special requirements to inspect the transport headers.
=
This is interesting.  I understand that you're trying to = permit deployment
of new transport protocols, but from a security = perspective I don't know
why an unknown transport protocol should = get less filtering than that for
UDP.  So I'm a bit uneasy with = this text but I don't know how to tweak it
to make it better.
=
I do think there's a need to be able to configure the router to = explicitly
pass any transport protocol.

***
In general = about firewall state - if the firewall is colocated with NAT,
you = want the lifetime of the firewall state associated with a flow to be
= the same as the lifetime of the NAT binding associated with the = flow.
That might seem obvious but I don't think it really is.
=
section 3.2.3:

   R18: Where an IPv6 prefix is = advertised on an interior interface
   alongside an IPv4 = private address [RFC1918] and IPv4 Internet service
   is = provided with NAT [RFC4787], the Teredo qualification procedure
=    (see section 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 of [RFC4380]) for clients in = the
   interior MUST be prohibited by the IPv4/NAT = stateful filter.  This
   SHOULD be done by blocking = outbound UDP initiations to port 3544, the
   port = reserved by IANA for Teredo servers.

- seems like the MUST = should refer to the default behavior.  it should be
  = possible to override = it.

See above remarks. =  This seems a question worth asking the working = group.

- are the = criteria correct?  What does the IPv4 private address have to
=   do with it?

I = suppose the phrase "alongside an IPv4 private address [RFC1918]" is = useless verbiage.  

does the IPv6 prefix have to be advertised by the = same
  gateway that implements the IPv4 NAT, or can it be = advertised elsewhere?
  what if that prefix is not a global = prefix but instead a ULA that
  presumably isn't globally = routeable?

Ah, yes. =  The intent here could be more clear.

- again it seems like the thing to do is not to block = Teredo, but impose
  the same filtering for Teredo that is = imposed for native IPv6.

We = considered that.  I wonder what the sense of the working group is = now.

***
  I'm thinking = that maybe every rule should be stated as follows:
  - what's = the default behavior?  MUST or SHOULD?
  - to what extent, = and what degree of granularity, is the gateway required
=     to make this behavior configurable?

***
=   I'm also thinking there's a need for balance between default IPv4 =
  behavior and default IPv6 behavior.  We should not = favor IPv4 over IPv6.
  Nor should IPv6 be seen as a way to = bypass IPv4 restrictions, unless there's
  a technical = justification for it (e.g. it's much harder to do port scanning
=   in IPv6 because the address space is sparse, so countermeasures = for IPv4
  might not be appropriate for = IPv6)

Down this road lies a = quagmire of trouble related to discussions that seem to be lying dormant = in the wake of RFC 4864.

section = 3.2.5:

   Residential IPv6 gateways are not expected = to prohibit the use of
   virtual private networks in = residential usage scenarios.

   R23: In their DEFAULT = operating mode, IPv6 gateways MUST NOT prohibit
   the = forwarding, to and from legitimate node addresses, with upper
=    layer protocol of type IP version 6, and SHOULD NOT = prohibit the
   forwarding of other tunneled networking = protocols commonly used for
   virtual private networking, = e.g.  IP version 4, Generic Routing
   Encapsulation, = etcetera.

For IP-in-IP tunneling, should the default = restrictions on the inner packet
be the same as the restrictions on = outer layer packet?

The = design team considered that and decided it was unnecessary.  We = regarded the establishment of a tunnel, even by manual configuration, as = morally equivalent to the solicitation of traffic through the tunnel, = and therefore not subject to the simple security policy intended to = block unsolicited flows.

section = 3.3.1:

   Peer-to-peer applications use an alternate = method of connection
   initiation termed = simultaneous-open (Fig. 8, [RFC0793]) to traverse
   = stateful filters.  In the simultaneous-open mode of operation, = both
   peers send SYN packets for the same TCP = connection.

I'd say "Some peer-to-peer = applications..."

Okay.
<= br>
I'm glad you mention = simultaneous open, though I'm not sure how it affects
firewall = operation.  The firewall is still not going to permit an = inbound
SYN packet unless it has first seen an outbound SYN = packet.   I guess the
firewall should not block an inbound = SYN packet if it has recently seen an
outbound SYN packet for the = same flow.

   It is possible to reconstruct enough of = the state of a TCP connection
   to allow forwarding = between an interior and exterior node even when
   the = filter starts operating after TCP enters the established state.
=    In this case, because the filter has not seen the TCP = window-scale
   option, it is not possible for the filter = to enforce the TCP window
   invariant by dropping = out-of-window segments.

   R25: The TCP window = invariant MUST NOT be enforced on connections for
   which = the filter did not detect whether the window-scale option (see
=    [RFC1323]) was sent in the 3-way handshake or simultaneous = open.

Mumble.  I think you're talking about how the = gateway should handle
flows that were already present (or may have = already been present) before
a filter was imposed, and that the = treatment of this topic seems a lot broader
than dealing with TCP = window negotiation.  e.g. is there a requirement that
the = firewall permit inbound packets on flows for which it didn't see the =
outgoing SYN because the filter was enabled after the SYN was = sent?

This requirement was = inserted because we wanted to be explicit about making sure that = loose-state matching for TCP isn't broken by buggy window scale tracking = and sequence number modulation.

(and for = that matter, can the gateway reasonably assume it is the only
path = between the = endpoints?)

Yes, this is an = assumption about simple residential gateways.  We do not consider = multihomed residential networks.

   A stateful filter can allow an existing = state record to be reused by
   an externally initiated = connection if its security policy permits.
   Several = different policies are possible as described in "Network
=    Address Translation (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for = Unicast UDP
   [RFC4787] and extended in "NAT Behaviorial = Requirements for TCP"
   [RFC5382].

   = R26: If application transparency is most important, then a stateful
=    packet filter SHOULD have "Endpoint independent filter" = behavior for
   TCP.  If a more stringent filtering = behavior is most important, then
   a filter SHOULD have = "Address dependent filtering" behavior.  The
   = filtering behavior MAY be an option configurable by the network
=    administrator, and it MAY be independent of the filtering = behavior
   for UDP and other protocols.

I think = the requirement should be stronger:
MUST implement endpoint = independent filtering and this MUST be the default.
MAY implement = address dependent filtering and this MUST NOT be the = default.

I would agree with = you, but I don't know what the rest of the working group thinks. =  This language came from the BEHAVE drafts for TCP, and I don't = remember it being terribly controversial in the design team discussions. =  Perhaps the working group feels differently than we = do.

address dependent filtering = breaks applications.

I = know.  Some people like that.  It breaks malicious = applications.

   R27: A gateway MUST = NOT signal an error for an unsolicited inbound
   SYN = packet for at least 6 seconds after the packet is received.  If
=    during this interval the gateway receives and forwards an = outbound
   SYN for the connection, then the gateway MUST = discard the original
   unsolicited inbound SYN packet = without signaling an error.
   Otherwise, the gateway = SHOULD send an ICMP Destination Unreachable
   error, code = 1 (administratively prohibited) for the original SYN--
   = unless sending any response violates the security policy of the
=    network administrator.

I think that gateways MUST = send ICMP destination unreachable by default,
MUST wait at least 6 = seconds before sending it (and abandon sending it
if it's seen a SYN = or SYN-ACK in the other direction) and MAY have an
option to = disable sending ICMP = unreachable.

Agree. =  This language should be cleaned up that = way.

   = R31: Gateways MUST implement a protocol to permit applications to
=    solicit inbound traffic without advance knowledge of the = addresses of
   exterior nodes with which they expect to = communicate.

I really think we need an IETF standard for this, = and it needs to work
with both NATs and = firewalls.

I'm less = convinced the need for this is urgent, and I disagree that we need one = protocol that works with both translators and filters.  For IPv6 = translators, e.g. NAT64, I'm beginning to think that what we really need = is to resurrect RSIP.  For IPv6 stateful filters, like CPE simple = security, I proposed a method: ALD.  A reference to it is in the = draft.  (That draft has quietly expired, because I've been sorta = hoping the need for it would wither away, but if that's yet more of my = trademark wishful thinking, I'll drag myself back into revising = it.)


--
james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
member of technical staff, communications = engineering

 =

= --Apple-Mail-1-43125906-- From gilbert@ucgtech.com Fri Mar 27 23:50:40 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DB6528C0EC; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 23:50:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 4.165 X-Spam-Level: **** X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.165 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DNS_FROM_RFC_BOGUSMX=1.482, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 mDtvJ43FgQrP; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 23:50:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from vpn-190.obukhov.net (vpn-190.obukhov.net [193.201.216.190]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B14863A679C; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 23:50:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 74.0.8.92 by smtp.193.201.216.190; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 02:43:09 -0500 Message-ID: <6313aq263JVEaaa-archive@lists.ietf.org> Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 02:51:09 -0500 From: "Sean Kern" To: "Dianne Steele" Subject: Take a look at the latest rep watches Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Money is tight, times are hard. Christmas is over. Time to get a new Watch! http://lacemust.com Visit Exqu1site Reps today and get a terrific designer watch imitation for a uniquely low price. Our watches are the most sought-after in the market, offering you the best performance and unsurpassed quality while allowing you to choose from hundreds of models within dozens of brands! http://lacemust.com Click here now and enjoy our fast shipping and safe billing method while getting the most realistic look on a fine reproduction timepiece. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sat Mar 28 02:38:46 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D32B3A681D for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 02:38:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.437 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 n5suIDqDo53r for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 02:38:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B79D13A6816 for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 02:38:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnUv2-000Pci-Lx for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 09:33:36 +0000 Received: from [130.37.15.35] (helo=stereo.hq.phicoh.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnUuw-000PbZ-SH for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 09:33:34 +0000 Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost.cs.vu.nl [127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (Smail #2) id m1LnUuu-0001UVC; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 10:33 +0100 Message-Id: To: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: [74attendees] The great emphasis on IPv6 - a positive look From: Philip Homburg References: <1237854355.16613.46.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <200903251916.23679.remi@remlab.net> <49CA851B.2070005@free.fr> <200903252241.57649.remi@remlab.net> <20090326191108.fce4d1e8.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> <49CB682F.505@iglou.com> <49CBA567.3090901@free.fr> In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:55:19 -0700 ." <49CBA567.3090901@free.fr> Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 10:33:27 +0100 Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: >> There are many people (myself included) that are happily using 6to4, >> and we're using 6to4 because the ISPs available to us are utterly and >> completely clueless, so we don't really have any other option. If the >> 6to4 anycast goes away and you require the ISP to deploy something for >> the replacement technology, you are effectively cutting us off from >> the IPv6 Internet for the foreseeable future. >The point is that ISPs, rather than setting up a 6to4 relay router >should setup a 6rd Gateway in order to offer native IPv6 prefix to their >customers. I wonder, what if ISPs who want to do an '6rd' like thing would announce longer prefixes than just 2002::/16. For example an ISP who has customers in an IPv4 /16 can announce 2002:xxyy::/32. To me it seems like that would end the 2002::/16 blackhole problem for that ISP's customers. Philip Homburg From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sat Mar 28 02:38:53 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFCAD3A681D for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 02:38:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.239 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.239 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.562, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, RDNS_NONE=0.1, RELAY_IS_203=0.994] 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 iakgSGABYUQ9 for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 02:38:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D934C3A6816 for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 02:38:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnUxV-000Pzf-6D for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 09:36:09 +0000 Received: from [203.6.132.66] (helo=smtp2.mail.adnap.net.au) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnUxQ-000Pyk-6y for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 09:36:06 +0000 Received: from 219-90-172-207.ip.adam.com.au ([219.90.172.207] helo=opy.nosense.org) by smtp2.mail.adnap.net.au with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnUa4-000B08-Dc; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 19:41:56 +1030 Received: from opy.nosense.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by opy.nosense.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D685C49298; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 20:05:57 +1030 (CST) Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 20:05:57 +1030 From: Mark Smith To: Mikael Abrahamsson Cc: Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de, v6ops@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: AW: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Message-Id: <20090328200557.16d30bd9.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> In-Reply-To: References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <943C3A80-979F-4289-BA20-C17D20861111@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> <6161A3E1-DCD1-467F-9AD5-0A15821413A2@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> <9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com> <20090326192455.dbcedfab.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.14.7; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) X-Location: Lower Mitcham, South Australia, 5062 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:53:05 +0100 (CET) Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de wrote: > > > Normally the customers are separated from each other by split horizont mchanisms and MAC adress translation techniques. > > Yes, but that defeats the whole purpose of the proposal from Mark Smith if > I correctly interpret the scenario he proposed. > Yes it would defeat it. The only reason I can think of to require hair pinning of traffic between downstream on-link peer CPE is if your default router is your traffic billing point, and you want to bill (count) the traffic between those CPE. Otherwise you're probably unnecessarily forcing a P2P model connectivity model (i.e. an ATM ADSL backhaul model) onto a multi-access technology (an Ethernet/ADSL backhaul model). Regards, Mark. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sat Mar 28 03:41:05 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C29BA3A699C for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 03:41:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.544 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.544 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.056, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 PEbjZQHT0+Oj for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 03:41:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E36263A67FC for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 03:41:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnVwA-0008xt-2F for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 10:38:50 +0000 Received: from [2001:41e0:ff00:0:216:3eff:fe00:4] (helo=abaddon.unfix.org) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnVw4-0008x2-4e for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 10:38:47 +0000 Received: from [IPv6:2001:41e0:ff42:b00:216:cfff:fe00:e7d0] (spaghetti.ch.unfix.org [IPv6:2001:41e0:ff42:b00:216:cfff:fe00:e7d0]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jeroen) by abaddon.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 82BF1401FFD; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 11:38:42 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <49CDFE32.8090301@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 11:38:42 +0100 From: Jeroen Massar Organization: Unfix User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.21) Gecko/20090302 Lightning/0.9 Thunderbird/2.0.0.21 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Philip Homburg CC: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: [74attendees] The great emphasis on IPv6 - a positive look References: <1237854355.16613.46.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <200903251916.23679.remi@remlab.net> <49CA851B.2070005@free.fr> <200903252241.57649.remi@remlab.net> <20090326191108.fce4d1e8.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> <49CB682F.505@iglou.com> <49CBA567.3090901@free.fr> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 OpenPGP: id=333E7C23 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig10F249818FF50638DFE7C674" Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig10F249818FF50638DFE7C674 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Philip Homburg wrote: >>> There are many people (myself included) that are happily using 6to4, = >>> and we're using 6to4 because the ISPs available to us are utterly and= =20 >>> completely clueless, so we don't really have any other option. If th= e=20 >>> 6to4 anycast goes away and you require the ISP to deploy something fo= r=20 >>> the replacement technology, you are effectively cutting us off from=20 >>> the IPv6 Internet for the foreseeable future. >> The point is that ISPs, rather than setting up a 6to4 relay router=20 >> should setup a 6rd Gateway in order to offer native IPv6 prefix to the= ir=20 >> customers. >=20 > I wonder, what if ISPs who want to do an '6rd' like thing would announc= e > longer prefixes than just 2002::/16. For example an ISP who has custome= rs > in an IPv4 /16 can announce 2002:xxyy::/32. >=20 > To me it seems like that would end the 2002::/16 blackhole problem for = that > ISP's customers. And import the complete IPv4 routing table into the IPv6 routing table. No thank you. See the 6to4 RFC btw which discusses that. Fortunately 2002::/16 orlonger is pretty well filtered. Greets, Jeroen --------------enig10F249818FF50638DFE7C674 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) iD8DBQFJzf41KaooUjM+fCMRAk3cAKCP41+Ugf3IZIjVzofakAdG8pz5SACfZJYi NAC3zjZglWStT7ne2KjvIts= =ZYw4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig10F249818FF50638DFE7C674-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sat Mar 28 07:52:38 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAD343A6905 for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 07:52:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.437 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 TaWvPwW2imqP for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 07:52:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C08323A679F for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 07:52:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnZpz-000IAn-64 for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 14:48:43 +0000 Received: from [130.37.15.35] (helo=stereo.hq.phicoh.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnZpu-000IA2-1e for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 14:48:40 +0000 Received: from stereo.hq.phicoh.net (localhost.cs.vu.nl [127.0.0.1]) by stereo.hq.phicoh.net with esmtp (Smail #2) id m1LnZps-0001UwC; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 15:48 +0100 Message-Id: To: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: [74attendees] The great emphasis on IPv6 - a positive look From: Philip Homburg References: <1237854355.16613.46.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <200903251916.23679.remi@remlab.net> <49CA851B.2070005@free.fr> <200903252241.57649.remi@remlab.net> <20090326191108.fce4d1e8.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> <49CB682F.505@iglou.com> <49CBA567.3090901@free.fr> <49CDFE32.8090301@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> In-reply-to: Your message of "Sat, 28 Mar 2009 11:38:42 +0100 ." <49CDFE32.8090301@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 15:48:32 +0100 Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: In your letter dated Sat, 28 Mar 2009 11:38:42 +0100 you wrote: >And import the complete IPv4 routing table into the IPv6 routing table. >No thank you. No, instead of that, every ISP gets a completely new prefix, wastes a lot of bits in that prefix (you need 32 bits for the IPv4 address), and then adds it to the routing table. And you can't even give customers the /48 they are supposed to get. >Fortunately 2002::/16 orlonger is pretty well filtered. You are saying that if an ISP gets a /32 from a RIR it is no problem, but a 2002::xxyy/32 suddenly is a problem? From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sat Mar 28 08:28:13 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4925B3A6837 for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 08:28:13 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.55 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 ypCQn0J0hkV3 for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 08:28:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A96B3A681D for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 08:28:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnaRd-000NlU-Gq for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 15:27:37 +0000 Received: from [2001:41e0:ff00:0:216:3eff:fe00:4] (helo=abaddon.unfix.org) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnaRV-000Njh-N0 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 15:27:33 +0000 Received: from [IPv6:2001:41e0:ff42:b00:216:cfff:fe00:e7d0] (spaghetti.ch.unfix.org [IPv6:2001:41e0:ff42:b00:216:cfff:fe00:e7d0]) (using SSLv3 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jeroen) by abaddon.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7181B401FFD; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 16:27:25 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <49CE41DF.6080000@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 16:27:27 +0100 From: Jeroen Massar Organization: Unfix User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.21) Gecko/20090302 Lightning/0.9 Thunderbird/2.0.0.21 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Philip Homburg CC: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: [74attendees] The great emphasis on IPv6 - a positive look References: <1237854355.16613.46.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <200903251916.23679.remi@remlab.net> <49CA851B.2070005@free.fr> <200903252241.57649.remi@remlab.net> <20090326191108.fce4d1e8.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> <49CB682F.505@iglou.com> <49CBA567.3090901@free.fr> <49CDFE32.8090301@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 OpenPGP: id=333E7C23 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigE35BA4E63AA23165945516F4" Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigE35BA4E63AA23165945516F4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Philip Homburg wrote: > In your letter dated Sat, 28 Mar 2009 11:38:42 +0100 you wrote: >> And import the complete IPv4 routing table into the IPv6 routing table= =2E >> No thank you. >=20 > No, instead of that, every ISP gets a completely new prefix, wastes a l= ot of > bits in that prefix (you need 32 bits for the IPv4 address), 6rd does NOT require that. Did you read Remi's draft? If an ISP has a IPv4 /21 for their customers they want to IPv6 enable then they need 32-21 =3D 11 bits. Thus they need a /48 - 11 =3D /37 for their 6rd prefix= =2E Then every user gets a nice /48. Or what Free does, give a /56 which is 'good enough for endusers' and thus you only need a /56 - 11 =3D /45. If they ISP has 5 IPv4 /21s they thus need 5x /45 for this trick. That address space can later, when the users get real native v6 (if ever) be re-allocated for other things. Still only 1 /32 (or larger if the ISP was able to justify that) will be visible in the IPv6 routing tables. Instead of 5 6to4 prefixes which should not be there in the first place. > and then adds it to the routing table. And you can't even give customer= s > the /48 they are supposed to get. >=20 >> Fortunately 2002::/16 orlonger is pretty well filtered. >=20 > You are saying that if an ISP gets a /32 from a RIR it is no problem, b= ut a > 2002::xxyy/32 suddenly is a problem? Yes, as that is what the RFC specifies. As I wrote in my previous email (and thus still a few lines above here) to avoid importing the IPv4 routing tables into IPv6. IPv6 !=3D IPv4. Please actually read the 6to4 RFC and the 6rd draft. Greets, Jeroen --------------enigE35BA4E63AA23165945516F4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) iD8DBQFJzkHfKaooUjM+fCMRAjKSAJ4nGnCuA7AXjlM9OMHLLRLb6fEcjgCgsu6H n9nzQTJk4kwx993wvEwq0DY= =huK6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigE35BA4E63AA23165945516F4-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sat Mar 28 09:20:06 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B12DE3A6A6A for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 09:20:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.495 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 w8g6Dq9mXm-y for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 09:20:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA2F63A6774 for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 09:20:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnbEi-0005Dl-U9 for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 16:18:20 +0000 Received: from [192.107.41.63] (helo=rdsmtp.iglou.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnbEV-0005BC-GL for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 16:18:09 +0000 Received: from iglou3.iglou.com ([192.107.41.6] helo=mail.iglou.com) by rdsmtp.iglou.com with esmtpa (Exim MTA/8.19.3) (envelope-from ) id 1LnbEU-0001x0-Sp by authid with igloumta_auth for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 12:18:06 -0400 Received: from 74-132-88-237.dhcp.insightbb.com ([74.132.88.237] helo=jmcadams-mbp.local) by smtp.iglou.com with esmtpsa (TLS cipher TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim MTA/8.19.3) (envelope-from ) id 1LnbEU-0006NE-B4 by authid with auth_plain for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 12:18:06 -0400 Message-ID: <49CE4DBA.7030107@iglou.com> Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 12:18:02 -0400 From: Jeff McAdams User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: [74attendees] The great emphasis on IPv6 - a positive look References: <1237854355.16613.46.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <200903251916.23679.remi@remlab.net> <49CA851B.2070005@free.fr> <200903252241.57649.remi@remlab.net> <20090326191108.fce4d1e8.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> <49CB682F.505@iglou.com> <49CBA567.3090901@free.fr> <49CDFE32.8090301@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: 74.132.88.237 X-IgLou-Customer: 0c0a260d80e111167f90f22b5835da5e Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Philip Homburg wrote: >> Fortunately 2002::/16 orlonger is pretty well filtered. > You are saying that if an ISP gets a /32 from a RIR it is no problem, but a > 2002::xxyy/32 suddenly is a problem? Yes, because 2002::xxyy/32 or whatever, as a direct import of the IPv4 routes results in much more routing table explosion than an ISP getting a /32. The ISP that I used to work for is relatively small and has to inject 7 IPv4 routes into the DFZ. When they go with IPv6 (alas, they haven't started that work yet, to my knowledge...I keep poking, though), they'll have 1 that will provide them with IPv6 space for pretty much any anticipated needs long long into the future. -- Jeff McAdams jeffm@iglou.com From ovcf@alfyinc2.b.tep1.com Sat Mar 28 09:50:00 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA35A3A6869 for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 09:50:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -20.714 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-20.714 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_VERIZON_P=2.144, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_VERIZON_POOL=1.495, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.561, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02=0.383, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 5OiuJYjO1Y0M for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 09:50:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from aftabtech.com (unknown [85.97.95.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1D3703A67EA for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 09:49:58 -0700 (PDT) To: Subject: Draft message From: MensHealth.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090328164959.1D3703A67EA@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 09:49:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subscribe to Men's Health Today!



Subscribe to Men's Health Today!





To your health,


David Zinczenko
Editor-in-Chief
Subscribe to Men's Health Today!
Unsubscribe | Your Privacy Rights

2008 Rodale Inc., all rights reserved.
Customer Service Dept., 33 East Minor Street, Emmaus, PA 18098
From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sat Mar 28 10:43:17 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5570B3A6821 for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 10:43:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.437 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.437 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 QnX26y6IQ94A for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 10:43:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DB473A67EF for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 10:43:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LncWj-000GJf-IW for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:41:01 +0000 Received: from [202.180.80.82] (helo=sonic.sneep.net) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LncWd-000GIh-Kx for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:40:58 +0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [202.180.80.82]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by sonic.sneep.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4136F3F065; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 06:40:53 +1300 (NZDT) Message-ID: <49CE6126.6080609@sneep.net> Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 01:40:54 +0800 From: Alastair Johnson User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Windows/20090302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Smith CC: Mikael Abrahamsson , Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de, v6ops@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: AW: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> <6161A3E1-DCD1-467F-9AD5-0A15821413A2@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> <9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com> <20090326192455.dbcedfab.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> <20090328200557.16d30bd9.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> In-Reply-To: <20090328200557.16d30bd9.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Mark Smith wrote: > On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:53:05 +0100 (CET) > Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > >> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de wrote: >> >>> Normally the customers are separated from each other by split horizont mchanisms and MAC adress translation techniques. >> Yes, but that defeats the whole purpose of the proposal from Mark Smith if >> I correctly interpret the scenario he proposed. >> > > Yes it would defeat it. The only reason I can think of to require hair > pinning of traffic between downstream on-link peer CPE is if your > default router is your traffic billing point, and you want to bill > (count) the traffic between those CPE. Otherwise you're > probably unnecessarily forcing a P2P model connectivity model (i.e. > an ATM ADSL backhaul model) onto a multi-access technology (an > Ethernet/ADSL backhaul model). Lawful Interception is another reason that a service provider may want all traffic from a subscriber aggregated to the default router. There may be no way around this, depending on the LI requirements that are placed on the service provider, and where the logical interception point is (BNG vs. DSLAM). aj From mp@alp-precision.fr Sat Mar 28 11:32:58 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E89703A6822 for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 11:32:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -30.325 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-30.325 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP=1.398, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_HU=1.35, HOST_EQ_BROADBND=1.118, HOST_EQ_HU=1.245, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.561, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02=0.383, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E4_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 LqyCi+2wDrdZ for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 11:32:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from amsc-france.com (unknown [189.35.6.15]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CBB673A6A31 for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 11:32:35 -0700 (PDT) To: Subject: My recently viewed pages From: MensHealth.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090328183237.CBB673A6A31@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 11:32:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subscribe to Men's Health Today!



Subscribe to Men's Health Today!





To your health,


David Zinczenko
Editor-in-Chief
Subscribe to Men's Health Today!
Unsubscribe | Your Privacy Rights

2008 Rodale Inc., all rights reserved.
Customer Service Dept., 33 East Minor Street, Emmaus, PA 18098
From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sat Mar 28 17:31:02 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A59673A67F4 for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:31:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.398 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.903, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 Dqt+jPSlCEYV for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:31:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE0F43A67B3 for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:31:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnhME-00033l-Da for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 22:50:30 +0000 Received: from [209.85.146.180] (helo=wa-out-1112.google.com) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LnhM7-000323-Qw for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 22:50:26 +0000 Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id j37so936055waf.9 for ; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 15:50:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+yt96OneNVg3LOthgO5je6rexPbBgcCy1UuNvdM5OQ4=; b=XV9as8lFosd3TzrZVBsdJ7c+0s3IEaM2UGdjFynU0WYJC7zsfylUlMwWdv2sKesgg0 gByYBUxn5TOXhGkA6+p6YOys3ixozChZLIIX7W4nM1jGEV3ymjVdVnypWRuDN8kAOj2u nL6fLJ3O+xUw3J24GvOSZioiDbaHfXp/jVLNo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=QH5rn48Tw5T1H3R7FRqpQU5WWvVo6TOVuxsTsaJ1QIC159AvUrn8Vvpz1GQ3PJwcB6 TXMCtoTkUIS12DeRD8KMin6WxpaIWGevNuhuWLI329Y4s9cJOtTV6mB0l5OnWMOEyH+o wpFn1F+15CTOEC7uuBkCz8NLMNkb9ljJFpFMY= Received: by 10.114.67.2 with SMTP id p2mr2434046waa.208.1238276641869; Sat, 28 Mar 2009 14:44:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?67.99.199.148? ([67.99.199.148]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n9sm2929233wag.11.2009.03.28.14.44.00 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 28 Mar 2009 14:44:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <49CE9A15.9010806@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 10:43:49 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeff McAdams CC: IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: [74attendees] The great emphasis on IPv6 - a positive look References: <1237854355.16613.46.camel@victoria-pingtel-com.us.nortel.com> <200903251916.23679.remi@remlab.net> <49CA851B.2070005@free.fr> <200903252241.57649.remi@remlab.net> <20090326191108.fce4d1e8.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> <49CB682F.505@iglou.com> <49CBA567.3090901@free.fr> <49CDFE32.8090301@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> <49CE4DBA.7030107@iglou.com> In-Reply-To: <49CE4DBA.7030107@iglou.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On 2009-03-29 05:18, Jeff McAdams wrote: > Philip Homburg wrote: >>> Fortunately 2002::/16 orlonger is pretty well filtered. > >> You are saying that if an ISP gets a /32 from a RIR it is no problem, >> but a >> 2002::xxyy/32 suddenly is a problem? > > Yes, because 2002::xxyy/32 or whatever, as a direct import of the IPv4 > routes results in much more routing table explosion than an ISP getting > a /32. > > The ISP that I used to work for is relatively small and has to inject 7 > IPv4 routes into the DFZ. When they go with IPv6 (alas, they haven't > started that work yet, to my knowledge...I keep poking, though), they'll > have 1 that will provide them with IPv6 space for pretty much any > anticipated needs long long into the future. Of course. But as Jeroen said, please read RFC3056. The only more-specifics under 2002::/8 that make any sense whatsoever are /48, and there would *potentially* be about 300,000 of them today, one per announced IPv4 network. More specifics under 2002::/8 are very much not allowed. Mr R. Bush gave us a very hard time about that before RFC3056 was approved. My point was that the same danger applies to a NAT64 well-known prefix. unless we carefully avoid it. Brian Brian From nmarshalld@affinityservicegroup.com Sun Mar 29 10:15:55 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A4403A6A1D for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 10:15:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -35.601 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-35.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_DSL=1.129, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.561, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02=0.383, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 rgjQpWylVWi0 for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 10:15:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cust-105-227-108-94.dyn.versateladsl.be (cust-105-227-108-94.dyn.versateladsl.be [94.108.227.105]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 61E133A6829 for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 10:15:52 -0700 (PDT) To: Subject: Your bookmarks From: MensHealth.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090329171553.61E133A6829@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 10:15:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subscribe to Men's Health Today!



Subscribe to Men's Health Today!





To your health,


David Zinczenko
Editor-in-Chief
Subscribe to Men's Health Today!
Unsubscribe | Your Privacy Rights

2008 Rodale Inc., all rights reserved.
Customer Service Dept., 33 East Minor Street, Emmaus, PA 18098
From linkrex7@amcore.com Sun Mar 29 16:48:17 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F56F3A687D for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:48:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -31.066 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-31.066 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, HELO_DYNAMIC_DHCP=1.398, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.561, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02=0.383, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 MM1yFWTsvzW2 for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:48:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cablelink44-113.intercable.net (CableLink44-113.INTERCABLE.net [207.248.44.113]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E3F413A67CC for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:48:14 -0700 (PDT) To: Subject: Notes From: MensHealth.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090329234814.E3F413A67CC@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:48:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subscribe to Men's Health Today!



Subscribe to Men's Health Today!





To your health,


David Zinczenko
Editor-in-Chief
Subscribe to Men's Health Today!
Unsubscribe | Your Privacy Rights

2008 Rodale Inc., all rights reserved.
Customer Service Dept., 33 East Minor Street, Emmaus, PA 18098
From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sun Mar 29 17:20:51 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E3AF3A69A2 for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:20:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -98.326 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=0.044, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 ZTbral6zrvMC for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:20:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DCDD3A67F2 for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:20:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lo59K-0003BD-Oa for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 00:14:46 +0000 Received: from [66.94.25.237] (helo=atmailx10.tmomail.net) by psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lo595-00039i-UH for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 00:14:39 +0000 Received: from 95.56.242.10.in-addr.arpa (95.56.242.10.in-addr.arpa [10.242.56.95]) by atmailx10.tmomail.net (8.14.1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id n2TNeDZp011918; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:40:29 -0700 Message-Id: <3182AB5C-3871-4FA4-AC4D-17D9AB498CB4@cisco.com> From: Fred Baker To: IPv6 Operations Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: draft-chown-v6ops-rogue-ra-03 WGLC Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:00:03 -0700 Cc: Kurt Erik Lindqvist , Ron Bonica X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=5.0.0-0811170000 definitions=main-0903290117 Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: This is to initiate a two week working group last call of draft-chown- v6ops-rogue-ra-03. Please read it now. If you find nits (spelling errors, minor suggested wording changes, etc), comment to the author; if you find greater issues, such as disagreeing with a statement or finding additional issues that need to be addressed, please post your comments to the list. We are looking specifically for comments on the importance of the document as well as its content. If you have read the document and believe it to be of operational utility, that is also an important comment to make. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sun Mar 29 18:07:49 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C8CA3A6BEB for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:07:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.296 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.296 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.801, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 omASe8Pjh0iL for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:07:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD93E3A6B31 for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:07:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lo5xq-0008HC-Vp for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 01:06:58 +0000 Received: from [198.24.6.3] (helo=imr2.ericy.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lo5xl-0008Ga-TQ for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 01:06:56 +0000 Received: from eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw751.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.51]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n2U16iXK020432; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 20:06:44 -0500 Received: from ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se ([142.133.1.72]) by eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 29 Mar 2009 20:05:42 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:05:41 -0400 Message-ID: <35815C929B41D2479A224FE098A27227070BEB08@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <49CD071D.6080405@gmail.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: Acmu/375+D5Zq3dbToG5yYt/hQ4gGgB07LaQ References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <943C3A80-979F-4289-BA20-C17D20861111@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> <6161A3E1-DCD1-467F-9AD5-0A15821413A2@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> <9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com> <925FA39D-42FC-4E3B-99C7-FA6E0DC7E0B7@apple.com> <49CBB0C9 .40908@gmail.com> <49CD071D.6080405@gma! il.com> From: "Alan Kavanagh" To: "Brian E Carpenter" , "Hemant Singh (shemant)" Cc: "james woodyatt" , "IPv6 Operations" , "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2009 01:05:42.0567 (UTC) FILETIME=[A5F53B70:01C9B0D3] Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Its fair to say that CPE Routers in general will not behave like routers on their upstream link to the IP_Edge BNG node. I would split this into two segments, a) The home CPE type Router and b)Retail/Enterprise Router that is connected to two or more IP_Edge/BND nodes. In case b) the use of some dynamic routing protocol would be preferable and makes sense. Alan K -----Original Message----- From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter Sent: March 27, 2009 1:04 PM To: Hemant Singh (shemant) Cc: james woodyatt; IPv6 Operations; Wes Beebee (wbeebee) Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments On 2009-03-28 05:10, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote: > Brain and others, >=20 >> If the broadband forum people don't want a use case with direct=20 >> CPE-CPE communication, that's their choice, but we shouldn't=20 >> artificially restrict this in the base spec for CPEs, IMHO. We write=20 >> IPv6 basic standards; they apply them to their use cases. >=20 > For past two days or so, we couldn't understand what scenario was James talking about. I and more folks thought one home to another home communications were being discussed but actually what James was looking at was a single home and this home's networking. We also had a disconnect with James because it wasn't told to us that there was a hub sitting behind the broadband modem and then a CPE Rtr is behind the hub. We assumed the CPE Rtr was directly connected to the broadband modem. Now that all things are clarified and we know it's one single home being discussed, we will look into common scenarios that Service Providers have in mind and take it from there. Yes, but if we conclude that it's desirable in general for CPE routers to behave like routers on their upstream link, AND if some ISPs don't want that, it should be a configuration issue to switch such behaviour on or off. IMHO. Brian From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sun Mar 29 18:07:59 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18C6F3A68F4 for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:07:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.136 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.136 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.641, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 0e6uAWhHpoRr for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:07:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0979A3A6C88 for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:07:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lo5xt-0008Hi-Ov for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 01:07:01 +0000 Received: from [198.24.6.9] (helo=imr1.ericy.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lo5xo-0008Gq-Dp for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 01:06:59 +0000 Received: from eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw750.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.50]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n2U1FC8D020988; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 20:15:15 -0500 Received: from ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se ([142.133.1.72]) by eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 29 Mar 2009 20:06:52 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:06:50 -0400 Message-ID: <35815C929B41D2479A224FE098A27227070BEB0A@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A105BE9746@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: Acmu/iKl9OPKqVbvSLW7yzw34OxRUQABOyfgAATmKTAAb0ZqwA== References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <943C3A80-979F-4289-BA20-C17D20861111@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> <6161A3E1-DCD1-467F-9AD5-0A15821413A2@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> <9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com> <925FA39D-42FC-4E3B-99C7-FA6E0DC7E0B7@apple.com> <49CBB0C9 .40908@gmail.com> <49CD071D.6080405@gma! ! !il.com > <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A105BE9746@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> From: "Alan Kavanagh" To: "Templin, Fred L" , "Hemant Singh (shemant)" , "Brian E Carpenter" Cc: "james woodyatt" , "IPv6 Operations" , "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2009 01:06:52.0402 (UTC) FILETIME=[CF953520:01C9B0D3] Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Yep, makes sense to me and that is what I also see :-) Alan =20 -----Original Message----- From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Templin, Fred L Sent: March 27, 2009 4:10 PM To: Hemant Singh (shemant); Brian E Carpenter Cc: james woodyatt; IPv6 Operations; Wes Beebee (wbeebee) Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Hemant, =20 > [8.2. Optional RIPng Support > The CPE Router may support RIPng routing protocol [RFC2080] (Malkin, G. and R. Minnear, "RIPng for > IPv6," January 1997.) so that RIPng operates between the CPE Router and the Service Provider network. > RIPng has scaling and security implications for the Service Provider network where one Service > Provider router may terminate several tens of thousands of CPE routers. However, RIPng does provide > one solution from the CPE Router to the Service Provider network for prefix route injection.] I don't see it as necessary to run RIPng when the CPEs act as routers. If we are willing to allow the CPEs to establish automatic IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnels across the provider network to a default IPv6 router, then the CPEs can access the IPv6 Internet. If the default router knows of a more direct path to the destination within the provider network, it can also send an ICMP redirect. So, there is no IPv6 routing protocol but the tens of thousands of customers still get to configure their CPE devices as IPv6 routers. This is exactly the VET model. Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com =20 >=20 > Hemant >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 1:04 PM > To: Hemant Singh (shemant) > Cc: james woodyatt; IPv6 Operations; Wes Beebee (wbeebee) > Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments >=20 > On 2009-03-28 05:10, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote: > > Brain and others, > > > >> If the broadband forum people don't want a use case with direct CPE-CPE > >> communication, that's their choice, but we shouldn't artificially=20 > >> restrict this in the base spec for CPEs, IMHO. We write IPv6 basic=20 > >> standards; they apply them to their use cases. > > > > For past two days or so, we couldn't understand what scenario was James talking about. I and more > folks thought one home to another home communications were being discussed but actually what James > was looking at was a single home and this home's networking. We also had a disconnect with James > because it wasn't told to us that there was a hub sitting behind the broadband modem and then a CPE > Rtr is behind the hub. We assumed the CPE Rtr was directly connected to the broadband modem. Now > that all things are clarified and we know it's one single home being discussed, we will look into > common scenarios that Service Providers have in mind and take it from there. >=20 > Yes, but if we conclude that it's desirable in general for CPE routers > to behave like routers on their upstream link, AND if some ISPs don't=20 > want that, it should be a configuration issue to switch such behaviour > on or off. IMHO. >=20 > Brian From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sun Mar 29 18:10:19 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3B523A6CAB for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:10:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.029 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.029 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.534, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 rQMr9XqvYH1O for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:10:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0879D3A6CA0 for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:10:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lo61Y-0008aL-Gs for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 01:10:48 +0000 Received: from [198.24.6.3] (helo=imr2.ericy.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lo61T-0008Zj-7A for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 01:10:45 +0000 Received: from eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw750.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.50]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n2U1AbOv021026; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 20:10:38 -0500 Received: from ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se ([142.133.1.72]) by eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 29 Mar 2009 20:09:38 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: AW: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:09:37 -0400 Message-ID: <35815C929B41D2479A224FE098A27227070BEB0C@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <49CE6126.6080609@sneep.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AW: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: AcmvzfDXNMZlabHFTqmXoroxI1GLYgBBiYzg References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> <6161A3E1-DCD1-467F-9AD5-0A15821413A2@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> <9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com> <20090326192455.dbcedfab.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> <20090328200557.16d30bd9.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> <49CE6126.6080609@sneep.n! et> From: "Alan Kavanagh" To: "Alastair Johnson" , "Mark Smith" Cc: "Mikael Abrahamsson" , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2009 01:09:38.0447 (UTC) FILETIME=[328DA9F0:01C9B0D4] Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Correct, and this is why SP's are not too keen to have routing localised in the aggregation network before the BNG.=20 -----Original Message----- From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alastair Johnson Sent: March 28, 2009 1:41 PM To: Mark Smith Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson; Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de; v6ops@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: AW: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Mark Smith wrote: > On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:53:05 +0100 (CET) Mikael Abrahamsson=20 > wrote: >=20 >> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de wrote: >> >>> Normally the customers are separated from each other by split horizont mchanisms and MAC adress translation techniques. >> Yes, but that defeats the whole purpose of the proposal from Mark=20 >> Smith if I correctly interpret the scenario he proposed. >> >=20 > Yes it would defeat it. The only reason I can think of to require hair > pinning of traffic between downstream on-link peer CPE is if your=20 > default router is your traffic billing point, and you want to bill > (count) the traffic between those CPE. Otherwise you're probably=20 > unnecessarily forcing a P2P model connectivity model (i.e. > an ATM ADSL backhaul model) onto a multi-access technology (an=20 > Ethernet/ADSL backhaul model). Lawful Interception is another reason that a service provider may want all traffic from a subscriber aggregated to the default router. There may be no way around this, depending on the LI requirements that are placed on the service provider, and where the logical interception point is (BNG vs. DSLAM). aj From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Sun Mar 29 18:21:00 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D25F3A6CC0 for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:21:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.952 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.952 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.458, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 FUzGfX3iEYM6 for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:20:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C36E93A6CBC for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 18:20:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lo69r-0009LQ-4N for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 01:19:23 +0000 Received: from [198.24.6.3] (helo=imr2.ericy.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lo69l-0009Ke-Ln for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 01:19:20 +0000 Received: from eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw751.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.51]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n2U1JEdi021860; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 20:19:14 -0500 Received: from ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se ([142.133.1.72]) by eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 29 Mar 2009 20:18:21 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9B0D5.695E581E" Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:18:18 -0400 Message-ID: <35815C929B41D2479A224FE098A27227070BEB0E@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA08AB7B0B@crexc41p> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: Acmtn8NXBkiWDxs/Q26RWqIFVoFKpQBc40uQAAJe0UgAbhpoYA== References: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA08AB7B0B@crexc41p> From: "Alan Kavanagh" To: "Stark, Barbara" , , , Cc: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2009 01:18:21.0307 (UTC) FILETIME=[6A33C4B0:01C9B0D5] Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9B0D5.695E581E Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hmm, im a little bit confused here or just missing some of this discussion, but what "routes" are you considering being advertised by the BNG/IP_Edge node and what routes would be then advertised from the WAN to the Home LAN network? =20 Alan K ________________________________ From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stark, Barbara Sent: March 27, 2009 4:44 PM To: wbeebee@cisco.com; jhw@apple.com; v6ops@ops.ietf.org Cc: shemant@cisco.com Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments It's not clear to me why manual configuration is specified as *the* way to configure these routes (again, I see RA (RFC 4191) from the access network to the CPE Rtr WAN interface as a way to configure the routes). I propose that if a CPE Rtr gets such routes from the WAN that it automatically put those same route prefixes in its LAN RAs. In which case it would not be off by default, but on by default (it would automatically send specific route info if it has specific route info to send). Barbara ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org To: james woodyatt ; IPv6 Operations Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant) Sent: Fri Mar 27 15:40:09 2009 Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments The new text for MSR's is as follows: "8.7 Multi-homed Host Support (MEDIUM) The CPE Router MAY support RFC4191 on its LAN interfaces. Small consumer embedded multi-homed hosts in the home may not have configurable routing tables. The CPE Router can communicate More Specific Routes (MSRs) to these hosts to allow them to choose a preferred router to send traffic to for traffic destined to specific prefixes configured through manual configuration. Advertisement of MSRs through RAs is turned off by default." - Wes -----Original Message----- From: james woodyatt [mailto:jhw@apple.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:17 PM To: IPv6 Operations Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); Wes Beebee (wbeebee) Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments On Mar 25, 2009, at 16:06, james woodyatt wrote: > > Please let me clarify my remarks and narrow my request somewhat, now > that I've had a chance to review more of the CPE Router draft. I am > only interested in such RFC 4191 messages when a valid PIO has been > received on the WAN link with L=3D1. No other cases are interesting. I take it back. It's interesting in the other cases as well. Two CPE routers attached to the same link will exchange their prefixes with MSR advertisements regardless of whether the RAs from the service provider have PIO options in them. As they should. -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, communications engineering ***** The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. GA622 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9B0D5.695E581E Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments
Hmm, im a little bit confused here or just = missing some of=20 this discussion, but what "routes" are you considering being advertised = by the=20 BNG/IP_Edge node and what routes would be then advertised from the WAN = to the=20 Home LAN network?
 
Alan K

From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org=20 [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stark,=20 Barbara
Sent: March 27, 2009 4:44 PM
To: = wbeebee@cisco.com;=20 jhw@apple.com; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Cc:=20 shemant@cisco.com
Subject: Re: = draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20 comments

It's not clear to me why manual configuration is = specified as=20 *the* way to configure these routes (again, I see RA (RFC 4191) from the = access=20 network to the CPE Rtr WAN interface as a way to configure the routes). = I=20 propose that if a CPE Rtr gets such routes from the WAN that it = automatically=20 put those same route prefixes in its LAN RAs. In which case it would not = be off=20 by default, but on by default (it would automatically send specific = route info=20 if it has specific route info to send).
Barbara

----- Original = Message=20 -----
From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org = <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
To:=20 james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>; IPv6 Operations=20 <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant)=20 <shemant@cisco.com>
Sent: Fri Mar 27 15:40:09 2009
Subject: = RE:=20 draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

The new text for MSR's = is as=20 follows:

"8.7 Multi-homed Host Support (MEDIUM)
The CPE Router = MAY=20 support RFC4191 on its LAN interfaces.  Small
consumer embedded=20 multi-homed hosts in the home may not have
configurable routing = tables. =20 The CPE Router can communicate More
Specific Routes (MSRs) to these = hosts to=20 allow them to choose a
preferred router to send traffic to for = traffic=20 destined to specific
prefixes configured through manual = configuration. =20 Advertisement of MSRs
through RAs is turned off by default."

- = Wes

-----Original Message-----
From: james woodyatt [mailto:jhw@apple.com]
Sent: = Wednesday, March=20 25, 2009 7:17 PM
To: IPv6 Operations
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); = Wes=20 Beebee (wbeebee)
Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20 comments

On Mar 25, 2009, at 16:06, james woodyatt = wrote:
>
>=20 Please let me clarify my remarks and narrow my request somewhat, = now
>=20 that I've had a chance to review more of the CPE Router draft.  I=20 am
> only interested in such RFC 4191 messages when a valid PIO = has=20 been
> received on the WAN link with L=3D1.  No other cases = are=20 interesting.

I take it back.  It's interesting in the other = cases as=20 well.  Two CPE
routers attached to the same link will exchange = their=20 prefixes with MSR
advertisements regardless of whether the RAs from = the=20 service provider
have PIO options in them.  As they=20 should.


--
james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
member = of=20 technical staff, communications = engineering



*****

The information = transmitted is=20 intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may = contain=20 confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review,=20 retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action = in=20 reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the = intended=20 recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact = the=20 sender and delete the material from all computers.=20 GA622

 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9B0D5.695E581E-- From chensandrach@tw.ibm.com Sun Mar 29 19:27:18 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A93D03A6AE2; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 19:27:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 4.128 X-Spam-Level: **** X-Spam-Status: No, score=4.128 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, GB_ROLEX=5, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_DYNAMIC=1.144, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_RECV_SPAM_DOMN0b=1.666, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SBL=20, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 nM-7vaNaSU17; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 19:27:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 122-118-210-51.dynamic.hinet.net (122-118-210-51.dynamic.hinet.net [122.118.210.51]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6B6ED3A6A95; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 19:27:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 89.240.0.100 by smtp.122.118.210.51; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 00:25:06 -0300 Message-ID: <355gwf5772BJDLtools-team@ietf.org> Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 22:28:06 -0500 From: "Yvonne Sheppard" To: "Joshua Hubbard" Subject: Save thousands... no one will know Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Money is tight, times are hard. Christmas is over. Time to get a new Watch! http://www.bothdeft.com/ Exqu1site Reps has it all: Rolex, Cartier, Tag Heuer, Breitling, and many more, for a fraction of the price of an original watch. And don't forget: when you order two watches, you get an extra 15 percent discount over our already low prices! http://www.bothdeft.com/ Get ready to feel like a kid in a candy store when you see our incredible collection of fine reproduction timepieces at Exqu1site Reps! Come on, get started now! From k-ishida@amada.co.jp Sun Mar 29 20:26:20 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 347233A6CED for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 20:26:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -11.652 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.652 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2=4.395, HELO_EQ_BR=0.955, HOST_EQ_BR=1.295, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.561, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02=0.383, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, TVD_RCVD_IP=1.931, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 eAQMsBpQ9TkP for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 20:26:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 189-39-159-35.gru.flash.tv.br (189-39-159-35.gru.flash.tv.br [189.39.159.35]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 368CC3A6CEA for ; Sun, 29 Mar 2009 20:26:12 -0700 (PDT) To: Subject: A giant, snow-covered banjo From: MensHealth.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090330032614.368CC3A6CEA@core3.amsl.com> Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 20:26:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subscribe to Men's Health Today!



Subscribe to Men's Health Today!





To your health,


David Zinczenko
Editor-in-Chief
Subscribe to Men's Health Today!
Unsubscribe | Your Privacy Rights

2008 Rodale Inc., all rights reserved.
Customer Service Dept., 33 East Minor Street, Emmaus, PA 18098
From jheredia@amara.es Mon Mar 30 02:41:10 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 457D43A6452 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 02:41:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.853 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.853 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.561, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02=0.383, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 0e3Ql3CTeFCC for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 02:41:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ppp-58-9-97-168.revip2.asianet.co.th (ppp-61-90-67-84.revip.asianet.co.th [61.90.67.84]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 63EE73A6C0C for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 02:41:00 -0700 (PDT) To: Subject: My recently viewed pages From: MensHealth.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090330094102.63EE73A6C0C@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 02:41:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subscribe to Men's Health Today!



Subscribe to Men's Health Today!





To your health,


David Zinczenko
Editor-in-Chief
Subscribe to Men's Health Today!
Unsubscribe | Your Privacy Rights

2008 Rodale Inc., all rights reserved.
Customer Service Dept., 33 East Minor Street, Emmaus, PA 18098
From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 30 02:51:56 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA14C3A6C25 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 02:51:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.177 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.177 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, RDNS_NONE=0.1, RELAY_IS_203=0.994] 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 sOQE8luCE-Q6 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 02:51:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 644153A69D0 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 02:51:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LoE6P-0002oR-7i for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:48:21 +0000 Received: from [203.6.132.66] (helo=smtp2.mail.adnap.net.au) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LoE6K-0002ne-5i for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:48:18 +0000 Received: from 219-90-172-207.ip.adam.com.au ([219.90.172.207] helo=opy.nosense.org) by smtp2.mail.adnap.net.au with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LoDin-000NCR-Ab; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 19:53:57 +1030 Received: from opy.nosense.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by opy.nosense.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AB75049298; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:18:05 +1030 (CST) Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:18:05 +1030 From: Mark Smith To: "Alan Kavanagh" Cc: "Alastair Johnson" , "Mikael Abrahamsson" , , Subject: Re: AW: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Message-Id: <20090330201805.d06e859f.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> In-Reply-To: <35815C929B41D2479A224FE098A27227070BEB0C@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> <9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com> <20090326192455.dbcedfab.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> <20090328200557.16d30bd9.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> <49CE6126.6080609@sneep.n! et> <35815C929B41D2479A224FE098A27227070BEB0C@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.16.0; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) X-Location: Lower Mitcham, South Australia, 5062 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Hi Alan, On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:09:37 -0400 "Alan Kavanagh" wrote: > Correct, and this is why SP's are not too keen to have routing localised > in the aggregation network before the BNG. > I'd have thought they should be keen to avoid that, unless all of their customers are all under or likely to all under surveilence at the same time! The technical requirement of LI is that traffic has pass the interception point. As the majority of people are honest, it seems to me that optimising the topology to pass the interception point, rather than for best throughput and lower latency, is wasteful, and an unfair performance and ultimately a network capex and opex cost burden on those subscribers who aren't under surveilence, and may never be. Only traffic that is to be lawfully intercepted should be forced past this interception point, if it doesn't already naturally traverse it. Some topologies would inherently make the BNG the best traffic interception point e.g. wholesale broadband aggregation via L2TP. However, for other topologies (e.g. a single VLAN interconnecting customers' ADSL routers, and an upstream default router for access to the Internet/other services), traffic can travel direct between subscribers / their CPE, as the CPEs have an on-link peer relationship. Should lawful interception be required, either that on-link path could be changed to traverse the interception point (e.g., by mechanisms such as forced forwarding), or better yet, the interception point be the suspect subscriber's point of interconnection i.e. the specific ADSL service that they're using - as all their traffic is naturally going to traverse that point. If an SP wants to have a topology that has all traffic traversing the BNG, or is forced to because of a legal requirement, that's fine. My argument is that other SPs won't have this requirement so they shouldn't also be forced to adopt this LI optimal topology - they should have the freedom to implement a topology optimised for throughput and low latency. So, getting back to the discussion point, I think there would be value in having a mechanism where downstream CPE can be informed of on-link peer-CPE's assigned prefixes, without the CPE themselves having to trust each other's announcements. An idea I had a while back was a "prefix redirect", similar to an ND host redirect, issued by, and only accepted from, the upstream on-link default router. Not quite as optimal as the CPE themselves announcing their prefixes via a routing protocol, but it would be more scalable - the CPE would only be maintaining topological knowledge for destinations they're currently using, rather than for all the destinations they can reach via on-link peer CPE. Regards, Mark. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Alastair Johnson > Sent: March 28, 2009 1:41 PM > To: Mark Smith > Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson; Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de; v6ops@ops.ietf.org > Subject: Re: AW: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments > > Mark Smith wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:53:05 +0100 (CET) Mikael Abrahamsson > > wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de wrote: > >> > >>> Normally the customers are separated from each other by split > horizont mchanisms and MAC adress translation techniques. > >> Yes, but that defeats the whole purpose of the proposal from Mark > >> Smith if I correctly interpret the scenario he proposed. > >> > > > > Yes it would defeat it. The only reason I can think of to require hair > > > pinning of traffic between downstream on-link peer CPE is if your > > default router is your traffic billing point, and you want to bill > > (count) the traffic between those CPE. Otherwise you're probably > > unnecessarily forcing a P2P model connectivity model (i.e. > > an ATM ADSL backhaul model) onto a multi-access technology (an > > Ethernet/ADSL backhaul model). > > Lawful Interception is another reason that a service provider may want > all traffic from a subscriber aggregated to the default router. There > may be no way around this, depending on the LI requirements that are > placed on the service provider, and where the logical interception point > is (BNG vs. DSLAM). > > aj > > From jopsdd@alien.bt.co.uk Mon Mar 30 05:04:30 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 447EB3A685F for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 05:04:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.595 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.595 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_VERIZON_P=2.144, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_VERIZON_POOL=1.495, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_28=1.561, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02=0.383, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=1.457, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.619, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 gwlsUN7KmKXy for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 05:04:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pool-173-71-93-234.cmdnnj.fios.verizon.net (pool-173-71-93-234.cmdnnj.fios.verizon.net [173.71.93.234]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 7E3983A67E2 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 05:04:21 -0700 (PDT) To: Subject: Turning to Google instead of God? From: MensHealth.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html Message-Id: <20090330120422.7E3983A67E2@core3.amsl.com> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 05:04:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subscribe to Men's Health Today!



Subscribe to Men's Health Today!





To your health,


David Zinczenko
Editor-in-Chief
Subscribe to Men's Health Today!
Unsubscribe | Your Privacy Rights

2008 Rodale Inc., all rights reserved.
Customer Service Dept., 33 East Minor Street, Emmaus, PA 18098
From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 30 06:41:38 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E8FF3A6A40 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 06:41:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.488 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.488 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.308, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315] 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 lGSayHrbQhv7 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 06:41:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 782313A6D04 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 06:41:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LoHgY-000NWX-88 for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:37:54 +0000 Received: from [64.102.122.149] (helo=rtp-iport-2.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LoHgJ-000NV7-Nk for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:37:48 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,446,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="40555729" Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Mar 2009 13:37:37 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2UDbbOK002755; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:37:37 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2UDbbb6017889; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:37:37 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.118]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:37:32 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:37:32 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: AcmvH5ROIDbr5Mb7Tu2C4NNFojEvngCHHKrQ References: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA08AB7B02@crexc41p> From: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" To: "Antonio Querubin" , "Stark, Barbara" Cc: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2009 13:37:32.0833 (UTC) FILETIME=[ADC59110:01C9B13C] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2619; t=1238420257; x=1239284257; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=wbeebee@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Wes=20Beebee=20(wbeebee)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20comm ents |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Antonio=20Querubin=22=20,=20=22Sta rk,=20Barbara=22=20; bh=SVRwEaVTAWVRQuWxib4AmQh3iGc2SzlCHJBbXKOuJsk=; b=dQtYTR2ddftn5ggKLmqeMxOZIuurMfRdGvTo9vByODia3ljM9E6miuiLKu 0hPfw+w3mj/5c7DYEkj/mF2e0qrUAv3BIXkjejeoQQDcmeiXi1HXCfdTd7GC eInYORrJAF; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=wbeebee@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: A cable modem can have an embedded CPE Router - known as an eRouter in CableLabs parlance. If the user desires wireless (802.11) connectivity in their home, they may also buy a Wireless Access Point, which also is typically a CPE router, and connect the two together. This is a very simple, and common, expected deployment (millions of people may have this in the future), which requires cascading of CPE Routers. - Wes=20 -----Original Message----- From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Antonio Querubin Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 5:02 PM To: Stark, Barbara Cc: swmike@swm.pp.se; v6ops@ops.ietf.org Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Stark, Barbara wrote: > That's an interesting use case, with definite application, but I=20 > wonder if it's really compelling in the case of the simple CPE Router. > > When CPE Routers are cascaded, the cascaded router is generally=20 > directly connected to the upstream router, so that there would be no=20 > added efficiencies from this. I don't think it's that uncommon. I've seen households, small businesses, churches, etc that have multiple routers/switches/WAP devices scattered throughout the home or their buildings/offices. While these types of deployments do not represent a very large percentage of how these devices are being used, I think we'll see more and more of these devices being cascaded together just for the addition of ports or access points. The cost difference between a switch-only device vs a router is so minimal that many consumers opt for the latter even though all they really need is another switch in most cases. Few of these entities have IT staff to advise them otherwise, nevermind efficiency. Last time I browsed the network section of a computer store, I saw as many wireless devices with built-in routers vs just standalone WAPs/switches. Same for the firewall/NAT devices. Changing the topic slightly, it seems to me that one of the big challenges for the CPER is determining how the prefix sub-delegation behaviour should be when you do have cascaded devices. Current IPv4 devices just avoid the issue by doing NAT upon NAT. If IPv6 frees users from limits on addresses and subnets then the CPER behaviour should be designed to automatically handle the partitioning of the SP-delegated /56 or /48 among 2 or more downstream CPERs. Should we try to spell out a recommended behaviour in more detail or are we gonna leave that up to vendor implementation? Antonio Querubin whois: AQ7-ARIN From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 30 07:08:58 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B38AE3A6D30 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 07:08:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.833 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.833 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.338, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 9M8V9OIyRm6A for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 07:08:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3400B3A6D17 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 07:08:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LoIA8-0000qJ-B1 for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:08:28 +0000 Received: from [216.82.242.3] (helo=mail121.messagelabs.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LoI9v-0000pB-5V for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:08:17 +0000 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: bs7652@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-12.tower-121.messagelabs.com!1238422093!22232139!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.0.0; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.53] Received: (qmail 19874 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2009 14:08:13 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.53) by server-12.tower-121.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 30 Mar 2009 14:08:13 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n2UE8CTU016881; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:08:12 -0400 Received: from 01GAF5142010622.AD.BLS.COM (01GAF5142010622.ad.bls.com [139.76.131.83]) by mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with SMTP id n2UE87us016754; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:08:07 -0400 Received: from 01NC27689010626.AD.BLS.COM ([90.144.44.201]) by 01GAF5142010622.AD.BLS.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:08:06 -0400 Received: from 01NC27689010641.AD.BLS.COM ([90.144.44.103]) by 01NC27689010626.AD.BLS.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:08:06 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.3168 Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: AW: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:08:02 -0400 Message-ID: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0DA1B731@crexc41p> In-Reply-To: <20090330201805.d06e859f.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AW: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments thread-index: AcmxHwX3qlNrVGIHTJW4KFpsPICkbQAHY7gQ References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com><2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com><2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com><30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com><9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com><20090326192455.dbcedfab.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org><20090328200557.16d30bd9.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org><49CE6126.6080609@sneep.n! et><35815C929B41D2479A224FE098A27227070BEB0C@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> <20090330201805.d06e859f.ipng@69706e6720323030352 d30312d31340a.nosens e.org> From: "Stark, Barbara" To: "Mark Smith" , "Alan Kavanagh" CC: "Alastair Johnson" , "Mikael Abrahamsson" , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2009 14:08:06.0335 (UTC) FILETIME=[F29FC4F0:01C9B140] Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: My remembrance of why SPs aren't keen to localize routing is quite different. Originally, cable operators had neighbors all on the same Ethernet network. Neighbors were able to discover each other's computers and printers (this was before routers were common), and sometimes sniff each other's traffic. This was considered a bad thing, from a customer security and privacy standpoint. Telco providers decided that they did not want to it this way, and effectively made Ethernet connections from customers "point-to-point" to an element in the access network.=20 Today, the access network elements are able to detect a lot of malware traffic (especially DDoS attacks), and disconnect customers that are infected with malware that presents a security / privacy / performance-impacting risk to others. Unfortunately, this is not an infrequent occurrence. If customer traffic were somehow able to bypass these network elements, it would open up neighbors to attacks by infected neighbors. That would be a very bad thing. Furthermore, in general, there just isn't that much neighbor-to-neighbor communication, that would make the savings outweigh the cost of implementation. The only neighbor my home trades a lot of traffic with (my kids and their kids, gaming) is on a separate network, since we use different service providers. Lack of cost justification and security concerns are the reasons why SPs are unlikely to localize traffic within the access network, for general consumers. Barbara > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Mark Smith > Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 5:48 AM > To: Alan Kavanagh > Cc: Alastair Johnson; Mikael Abrahamsson; Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de; > v6ops@ops.ietf.org > Subject: Re: AW: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments >=20 > Hi Alan, >=20 > On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:09:37 -0400 > "Alan Kavanagh" wrote: >=20 > > Correct, and this is why SP's are not too keen to have routing > localised > > in the aggregation network before the BNG. > > >=20 > I'd have thought they should be keen to avoid that, unless all of their > customers are all under or likely to all under surveilence at the same > time! >=20 > The technical requirement of LI is that traffic has pass the > interception point. As the majority of people are honest, it seems to > me that optimising the topology to pass the interception point, rather > than for best throughput and lower latency, is wasteful, and an unfair > performance and ultimately a network capex and opex cost burden on > those subscribers who aren't under surveilence, and may never be. Only > traffic that is to be lawfully intercepted should be forced past this > interception point, if it doesn't already naturally traverse it. >=20 > Some topologies would inherently make the BNG the best traffic > interception point e.g. wholesale broadband aggregation via L2TP. > However, for other topologies (e.g. a single VLAN interconnecting > customers' ADSL routers, and an upstream default router for access to > the Internet/other services), traffic can travel direct between > subscribers / their CPE, as the CPEs have an on-link peer relationship. > Should lawful interception be required, either that on-link path could > be changed to traverse the interception point (e.g., by mechanisms > such as forced forwarding), or better yet, the interception point be > the > suspect subscriber's point of interconnection i.e. the specific ADSL > service that they're using - as all their traffic is naturally going to > traverse that point. >=20 > If an SP wants to have a topology that has all traffic traversing the > BNG, or is forced to because of a legal requirement, that's fine. > My argument is that other SPs won't have this requirement so they > shouldn't also be forced to adopt this LI optimal topology - they > should have the freedom to implement a topology optimised for > throughput and low latency. >=20 > So, getting back to the discussion point, I think there would be > value in having a mechanism where downstream CPE can be informed of > on-link peer-CPE's assigned prefixes, without the CPE themselves having > to trust each other's announcements. An idea I had a while back was a > "prefix redirect", similar to an ND host redirect, issued by, and only > accepted from, the upstream on-link default router. Not quite as > optimal as the CPE themselves announcing their prefixes via a routing > protocol, but it would be more scalable - the CPE would only be > maintaining topological knowledge for destinations they're currently > using, rather than for all the destinations they can reach via on-link > peer CPE. >=20 > Regards, > Mark. >=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On > > Behalf Of Alastair Johnson > > Sent: March 28, 2009 1:41 PM > > To: Mark Smith > > Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson; Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de; v6ops@ops.ietf.org > > Subject: Re: AW: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments > > > > Mark Smith wrote: > > > On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:53:05 +0100 (CET) Mikael Abrahamsson > > > wrote: > > > > > >> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de wrote: > > >> > > >>> Normally the customers are separated from each other by split > > horizont mchanisms and MAC adress translation techniques. > > >> Yes, but that defeats the whole purpose of the proposal from Mark > > >> Smith if I correctly interpret the scenario he proposed. > > >> > > > > > > Yes it would defeat it. The only reason I can think of to require > hair > > > > > pinning of traffic between downstream on-link peer CPE is if your > > > default router is your traffic billing point, and you want to bill > > > (count) the traffic between those CPE. Otherwise you're probably > > > unnecessarily forcing a P2P model connectivity model (i.e. > > > an ATM ADSL backhaul model) onto a multi-access technology (an > > > Ethernet/ADSL backhaul model). > > > > Lawful Interception is another reason that a service provider may > want > > all traffic from a subscriber aggregated to the default router. > There > > may be no way around this, depending on the LI requirements that are > > placed on the service provider, and where the logical interception > point > > is (BNG vs. DSLAM). > > > > aj > > > > ***** The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to = which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or = privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other = use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by = persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If = you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the = material from all computers. GA622 From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 30 08:10:54 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC5BF28C110 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:10:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.672 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.672 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.178, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 Gl1U8Okjr1mw for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:10:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23F5A3A6C43 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:10:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LoJ6i-0006iV-HV for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:09:00 +0000 Received: from [64.102.122.148] (helo=rtp-iport-1.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LoJ6Y-0006hQ-HY for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:08:56 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,446,1233532800"; d="scan'208,217";a="40603237" Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Mar 2009 15:08:48 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2UF8mAi004018; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:08:48 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2UF8mr3022821; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:08:48 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.40]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:08:47 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9B149.6D063852" Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:08:46 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0DA1B62D@crexc41p> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: Acmtn8NXBkiWDxs/Q26RWqIFVoFKpQBc40uQAAJe0UgAAErakAAEmpuwABylC6A= References: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA08AB7B0B@crexc41p> <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0DA1B62D@crexc41p> From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" To: "Stark, Barbara" , "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2009 15:08:47.0998 (UTC) FILETIME=[6D3971E0:01C9B149] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=7552; t=1238425728; x=1239289728; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20comm ents |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Stark,=20Barbara=22=20,=0A=20=20= 20=20=20=20=20=20=22Wes=20Beebee=20(wbeebee)=22=20,=20; bh=XRnmHXMx+uN6gV4KvF1RdSbFHVTkDJCe7FVPYvpCFYQ=; b=EhJdhER9g2ZlcxxsEX1IorB2S2buISEj3A0Bn1OhXJ8SUsH81EcJYbc85l LqD7sgr/TKjIC9QjnGsGvAp0WJM6Xg5hTIxcj1k3mIB2fXAysSPqRhri8Nev /Q35q1h4Zm; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=shemant@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9B149.6D063852 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Barbara, =20 >This is non-normative language, in the abstract of RFC 4191. Normative references to RFC 4191 purely apply to the protocol, and do not apply to non-normative statements in that RFC about how one might or might not configure the elements of that protocol. The goal >of not having too many routes advertised is worthy, and does need to be given serious consideration in the design of any algorithm that would derive the routes in an automated manner. =20 Sure, we can grant you that the Abstract is non-normative language . However, there is still Normative language in section 4 for RFC 4191 I have shown below. =20 [The preference values (both Default Router Preferences and Route Preferences) SHOULD NOT be routing metrics or automatically derived from metrics: the preference values SHOULD be configured.] =20 A minor point first. When did any admin automate configuration of RA on a router? Since an RA is manually configured on a router it makes sense to manually configure any extensions to the RA like the MSR. Anyhow, as I said before, the SP doesn't even have all the routing and prefix information available for what's what multi-homed devices will be deployed in the home, the MSR cannot even be derived by the SP, let alone the SP automating derivation and sending of the MSR. =20 Hemant =20 =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9B149.6D063852 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

Barbara,

 

>This is non-normative language, in the abstract of RFC = 4191. Normative references to RFC 4191 purely apply to the protocol, and do = not apply to non-normative statements in that RFC about how one might or might not configure the elements of that protocol. The goal >of not having too many routes advertised is worthy, and does need to be = given serious consideration in the design of any algorithm that would derive = the routes in an automated manner.

 

Sure, we can grant you that the Abstract is non-normative language .   However, there is still Normative language in = section 4 for RFC 4191 I have shown below.

 

[The preference values (both Default Router Preferences and = Route

 Preferences) SHOULD NOT be routing metrics or automatically = derived

 from metrics: the preference values SHOULD be = configured.]

 

 A minor point first.  When did any admin = automate configuration of RA on a router?  Since an RA is manually = configured on a router it makes sense to manually configure any extensions to the RA = like the MSR.   Anyhow, as I said before, the SP doesn’t even = have all the routing and prefix information available for what’s what = multi-homed devices will be deployed in the home, the MSR cannot even be derived by = the SP, let alone the SP automating derivation and sending of the = MSR.

 

Hemant

 

 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C9B149.6D063852-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 30 08:21:19 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14C0328C118 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:21:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.668 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.668 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.173, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 HQvXPDPPlnet for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:21:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6AB33A6CFD for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:21:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LoJIT-0008Nl-TB for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:21:09 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.72] (helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LoJIL-0008Mk-HH for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:21:07 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,446,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="148213235" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Mar 2009 15:21:01 +0000 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2UFL15D006778; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:21:01 -0700 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2UFKrKU014040; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:21:00 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.40]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:20:59 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:20:56 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0D880F0B@crexc41p> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: Acmtn8NPb/dWspXYRnODFO9GkKezLwAgXPQwAAiNR8AALNkA8AABYuegAJNoyaA= References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <0DD150BF-77BC-4527-BD35-9202F94496E0@apple.com> <95F8ED8E-261B-437C-8063-223D345C364B@apple.com> <943C3A80-979F-4289-BA20-C17D20861111@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> <6161A3E1-DCD1-467F-9AD5-0A15821413A2@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> <9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com> <925FA39D-42FC-4E3B-99C7-FA6E0DC7E0B7@apple.com> <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0D880CA8@crexc41p> <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0D880F0B@crexc41p> From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" To: "Stark, Barbara" , "james woodyatt" , "IPv6 Operations" Cc: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2009 15:20:59.0076 (UTC) FILETIME=[20FB1840:01C9B14B] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1302; t=1238426461; x=1239290461; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20comm ents |Sender:=20; bh=xveZyPsuVAFmpRd9/XbqmovGZ4e9OwKyeQTGLL5BdTM=; b=KpGbIAGjrLPR+VqgheGLIjkZl//wSF0mLCQPHZzlz5BWp82t/34OZLRUSO KxwhKh08wnwZ24r7DocPjP/MCkfckexsw6npVkWjlBAoPRhJd7gO2MKHQIPu vCPdBSC2gLZpwIJRwWZVgQrqgThA/SFe1HHR3jon5GwseO+a8RuFU=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=shemant@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: >> Also, what node are you talking about >> when you say "static routes in routing table"? The host or the home=20 >> router? I think you mean host, but still it good to make such things >> clear. > No, I meant the router. The SP has no ability to statically configure the hosts, just the SP router. Even if the SP doesn't have any ability to statically configure the hosts, if an SP has a dedicated static IP address to a home, it is also routine that the SP calls the home user and have the home user configure anything static on the home PC including the IP address and any static routes. I personally went thru such a exercise with MCI/Worldcom for a dedicated static IP address in my home via DSL seven years back. Further, if any SP has more than one Internet connection to a single home, then even if the SP cannot configure any host in the home, the home user himself/herself has to configure various static routes to selectively forward traffic out of the home via more than one Internet connection. That is the whole point of the discussion that if an SP gives a home more than one Internet connection, the hosts in the home would also have to have configure the selective routes - statically or if IPv6 is used, one tool is MSR. =20 Hemant From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 30 08:45:58 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC8D63A691E for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:45:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.173 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.173 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.678, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 cGZ-Q2jNW78b for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:45:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6742C3A67B1 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:45:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LoJf9-000Aqh-N9 for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:44:35 +0000 Received: from [130.76.64.48] (helo=slb-smtpout-01.boeing.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LoJf4-000Aq6-PH for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:44:33 +0000 Received: from slb-av-01.boeing.com (slb-av-01.boeing.com [129.172.13.4]) by slb-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/8.14.0/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id n2UFiIOc015065 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:44:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from slb-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by slb-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id n2UFiIXc002100; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:44:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwbh-11.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.55.84]) by slb-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id n2UFiI2M002090; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:44:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.54.35]) by XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:44:15 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: AW: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 08:44:15 -0700 Message-ID: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A105BE9BDE@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> In-Reply-To: <20090330201805.d06e859f.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AW: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: AcmxHst2eNNak/sMShS89CLxA5zbWwALpHyA References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com><2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com><2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com><30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com><9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com><20090326192455.dbcedfab.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org><20090328200557.16d30bd9.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org><49CE6126.6080609@sneep.n!et><35815C929B41D2479A224FE098A27227070BEB0C@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> <20090330201805.d06e859f.ipng@69706e6720323030352! d30312d31 340a.nosense.org> From: "Templin, Fred L" To: "Mark Smith" , "Alan Kavanagh" Cc: "Alastair Johnson" , "Mikael Abrahamsson" , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2009 15:44:15.0153 (UTC) FILETIME=[611B8A10:01C9B14E] Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Mark/Alan, > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Smith [mailto:ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org] > Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 2:48 AM > To: Alan Kavanagh > Cc: Alastair Johnson; Mikael Abrahamsson; Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de; v6ops@ops.ietf.org > Subject: Re: AW: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments >=20 > Hi Alan, >=20 > On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:09:37 -0400 > "Alan Kavanagh" wrote: >=20 > > Correct, and this is why SP's are not too keen to have routing localised > > in the aggregation network before the BNG. > > >=20 > I'd have thought they should be keen to avoid that, unless all of their > customers are all under or likely to all under surveilence at the same > time! >=20 > The technical requirement of LI is that traffic has pass the > interception point. As the majority of people are honest, it seems to > me that optimising the topology to pass the interception point, rather > than for best throughput and lower latency, is wasteful, and an unfair > performance and ultimately a network capex and opex cost burden on > those subscribers who aren't under surveilence, and may never be. Only > traffic that is to be lawfully intercepted should be forced past this > interception point, if it doesn't already naturally traverse it. I don't mind keeping all flows from CPE_1 to CPE_2 going through the provider's default router, and that is in fact a perfectly legitimate deployment scenario for VET. But, if we want CPE_1 to CPE_2 route optimization, there needs to be some way for them to establish a trust basis.=20 =20 > Some topologies would inherently make the BNG the best traffic > interception point e.g. wholesale broadband aggregation via L2TP. > However, for other topologies (e.g. a single VLAN interconnecting > customers' ADSL routers, and an upstream default router for access to > the Internet/other services), traffic can travel direct between > subscribers / their CPE, as the CPEs have an on-link peer relationship. > Should lawful interception be required, either that on-link path could > be changed to traverse the interception point (e.g., by mechanisms > such as forced forwarding), or better yet, the interception point be the > suspect subscriber's point of interconnection i.e. the specific ADSL > service that they're using - as all their traffic is naturally going to > traverse that point. >=20 > If an SP wants to have a topology that has all traffic traversing the > BNG, or is forced to because of a legal requirement, that's fine. > My argument is that other SPs won't have this requirement so they > shouldn't also be forced to adopt this LI optimal topology - they > should have the freedom to implement a topology optimised for > throughput and low latency. >=20 > So, getting back to the discussion point, I think there would be > value in having a mechanism where downstream CPE can be informed of > on-link peer-CPE's assigned prefixes, without the CPE themselves having > to trust each other's announcements. An idea I had a while back was a > "prefix redirect", similar to an ND host redirect, issued by, and only > accepted from, the upstream on-link default router. Not quite as > optimal as the CPE themselves announcing their prefixes via a routing > protocol, but it would be more scalable - the CPE would only be > maintaining topological knowledge for destinations they're currently > using, rather than for all the destinations they can reach via on-link > peer CPE. VET provides exactly such a mechanism. When CPE_1 gets a redirect from the provider's default router, it can send credentials (including proof of prefix ownership) forward to CPE_2. In the reverse path, CPE_2 can send its credentials to CPE_1. Sure, it's asymmetric - but it gets the job done. Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com =20 > Regards, > Mark. >=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On > > Behalf Of Alastair Johnson > > Sent: March 28, 2009 1:41 PM > > To: Mark Smith > > Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson; Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de; v6ops@ops.ietf.org > > Subject: Re: AW: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments > > > > Mark Smith wrote: > > > On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:53:05 +0100 (CET) Mikael Abrahamsson > > > wrote: > > > > > >> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de wrote: > > >> > > >>> Normally the customers are separated from each other by split > > horizont mchanisms and MAC adress translation techniques. > > >> Yes, but that defeats the whole purpose of the proposal from Mark > > >> Smith if I correctly interpret the scenario he proposed. > > >> > > > > > > Yes it would defeat it. The only reason I can think of to require hair > > > > > pinning of traffic between downstream on-link peer CPE is if your > > > default router is your traffic billing point, and you want to bill > > > (count) the traffic between those CPE. Otherwise you're probably > > > unnecessarily forcing a P2P model connectivity model (i.e. > > > an ATM ADSL backhaul model) onto a multi-access technology (an > > > Ethernet/ADSL backhaul model). > > > > Lawful Interception is another reason that a service provider may want > > all traffic from a subscriber aggregated to the default router. There > > may be no way around this, depending on the LI requirements that are > > placed on the service provider, and where the logical interception point > > is (BNG vs. DSLAM). > > > > aj > > > > From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 30 10:43:11 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B6C93A67CF for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:43:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.663 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.663 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.168, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 reglnbiu3ofm for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:43:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DEB53A63D3 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:43:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LoLT3-000Li4-25 for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:40:13 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.72] (helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LoLSx-000Lh8-Ll for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:40:10 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,447,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="148273950" Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Mar 2009 17:40:06 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2UHe66m011721; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:40:06 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2UHe5nC006084; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:40:06 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.40]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:40:01 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:40:00 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <35815C929B41D2479A224FE098A27227070BEB08@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: Acmu/375+D5Zq3dbToG5yYt/hQ4gGgB07LaQACKHbJA= References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <943C3A80-979F-4289-BA20-C17D20861111@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231557i618926bavff56f877c18eeee9@mail.gmail.com> <6161A3E1-DCD1-467F-9AD5-0A15821413A2@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> <9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com> <925FA39D-42FC-4E3B-99C7-FA6E0DC7E0B7@apple.com> <49CBB0C9 .40908@gmail.com> <49CD071D.6080405@gma! il.com> <35815C929B41D2479A224FE098A27227070BEB08@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" To: "Alan Kavanagh" , "Brian E Carpenter" Cc: "james woodyatt" , "IPv6 Operations" , "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2009 17:40:01.0138 (UTC) FILETIME=[8D3CBD20:01C9B15E] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1742; t=1238434806; x=1239298806; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20comm ents |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Alan=20Kavanagh=22=20 ,=0A=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=22Brian=20E=20Carpenter=22=20; bh=xBACFKljvf0QOokqom5MJkN4f9c2g6KvhiIX+qVdQm4=; b=qZZXWFNzHXPRAayDFAiZHtyfKW+nQKyBvCAUeaoQ2pkFZJ6/ZtKEu/oKMH 2tc9F6MUq1GHWy4i84TV6nE5QxjUrVR5PvHMMNG+3dfqqMxiz5ItSvlsd4Wq GBeDn28UWh; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=shemant@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Alan, I don't understand your case (b) below. If a single CPE Rtr in case (b) is connected to, say, two different L3 first hop addresses (on one or more SP routers), since both WAN interfaces on the CPE Rtr reside in one device the internals of the device can forward traffic between the two WAN interface and the device LAN interfaces. Why would we need routing between internals of the device? Sure, if more than one CPE Rtr device resides in a single home, I have already said, the two CPE Rtrs in the home should use RIPng to share route information. Also, since we have already said RIPng is optional on the WAN interface of the CPE Rtr, I don't know what else to say. If a deployment does not want to use RIPng between the CPE Router WAN interface and the SP, that is already included in the CPE Rtr document. The same document also discusses using RIPng on the WAN interface has scaling implications on the SP L3 edge facing the home. So the email Fred said about thousands of devices is already something that I have replied to. Hemant -----Original Message----- From: Alan Kavanagh [mailto:alan.kavanagh@ericsson.com]=20 Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 9:06 PM To: Brian E Carpenter; Hemant Singh (shemant) Cc: james woodyatt; IPv6 Operations; Wes Beebee (wbeebee) Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Its fair to say that CPE Routers in general will not behave like routers on their upstream link to the IP_Edge BNG node. I would split this into two segments, a) The home CPE type Router and b)Retail/Enterprise Router that is connected to two or more IP_Edge/BND nodes. In case b) the use of some dynamic routing protocol would be preferable and makes sense. Alan K From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 30 10:48:59 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01E2B3A6BBB for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:48:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.501 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.321, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315] 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 nfVrrDw2644T for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:48:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1687D3A6BB4 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:48:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LoLbN-000McA-G5 for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:48:49 +0000 Received: from [64.102.122.148] (helo=rtp-iport-1.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LoLbI-000MbA-8I for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:48:46 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,447,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="40612095" Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Mar 2009 17:48:43 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2UHmhsi003296; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:48:43 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2UHmenZ010774; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:48:43 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.40]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:48:42 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:48:42 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: AcmvH5ROIDbr5Mb7Tu2C4NNFojEvngCHHKrQAAi+kbA= References: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA08AB7B02@crexc41p> From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" To: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" , "Antonio Querubin" , "Stark, Barbara" Cc: , , "Alan Kavanagh" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2009 17:48:42.0623 (UTC) FILETIME=[C41108F0:01C9B15F] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1241; t=1238435323; x=1239299323; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20comm ents |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Wes=20Beebee=20(wbeebee)=22=20 ,=0A=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=22Antonio=20Querubin=22=20,=20=22Stark,=20Barbara=22=20; bh=xMcWxhrDSpUEZyJCtvWAtv9pGIgs/PPZEZGEZh7Wt64=; b=0MQguNvJykuGXtNlFmK6+DGAwDpO6pkh6m57av8k+bzqBLkl8L2npykTGC oYBTUJguEJ2p9R8uxj8TSR5uVDvaOTa84gh98wivnomAXkrbAePXk6YfJS0q OWbE5UjSzy; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=shemant@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: BTW, I expect even DSL folks will have an embedded CPE Router inside a DSL modem. Of course, both cable and DSL deployments can also go with an external CPE Rtr that is standalone and not combined in one device for both modem and router. I would like folks to note that our draft doesn't care. We have defined a router specification that can be embedded in a broadband modem or be used to build a standalone CPE Router. We have made such facts clear in our document. Thanks, Hemant -----Original Message----- From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Wes Beebee (wbeebee) Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 9:38 AM To: Antonio Querubin; Stark, Barbara Cc: swmike@swm.pp.se; v6ops@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments A cable modem can have an embedded CPE Router - known as an eRouter in CableLabs parlance. If the user desires wireless (802.11) connectivity in their home, they may also buy a Wireless Access Point, which also is typically a CPE router, and connect the two together. This is a very simple, and common, expected deployment (millions of people may have this in the future), which requires cascading of CPE Routers. - Wes=20 From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 30 10:59:58 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 824D73A6C73 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:59:58 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.895 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.895 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.400, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 BuXCicokvgTl for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:59:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE6E63A6D31 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:59:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LoLlm-000Nuf-Ak for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:59:34 +0000 Received: from [198.24.6.9] (helo=imr1.ericy.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LoLlf-000NtS-DP for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:59:31 +0000 Received: from eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw750.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.50]) by imr1.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n2UI7h0m021286; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:07:45 -0500 Received: from ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se ([142.133.1.72]) by eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:59:20 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: AW: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:59:18 -0400 Message-ID: <35815C929B41D2479A224FE098A27227070BF00B@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0DA1B731@crexc41p> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AW: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: AcmxHwX3qlNrVGIHTJW4KFpsPICkbQAHY7gQAAjXeWA= References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com><2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com><2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com><30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com><9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com><20090326192455.dbcedfab.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org><20090328200557.16d30bd9.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org><49CE6126.6080609@sneep.n! et><35815C929B41D2479A224FE098A27227070BEB0C@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> <20090330201805.d06e859f.ipng@69706e672032303035! 2 d30312d 31340a.nosen se.org> <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0DA1B731@crexc41p> From: "Alan Kavanagh" To: "Stark, Barbara" , "Mark Smith" Cc: "Alastair Johnson" , "Mikael Abrahamsson" , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2009 17:59:20.0256 (UTC) FILETIME=[40201C00:01C9B161] Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Yes, agree on this that is the other reason why Fixed Broad Band SP's ensure traffic to seperated and all traffic is routed to the BNG and I don't see this changing. Alan=20 -----Original Message----- From: Stark, Barbara [mailto:bs7652@att.com]=20 Sent: March 30, 2009 7:08 AM To: Mark Smith; Alan Kavanagh Cc: Alastair Johnson; Mikael Abrahamsson; Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de; v6ops@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: AW: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments My remembrance of why SPs aren't keen to localize routing is quite different. Originally, cable operators had neighbors all on the same Ethernet network. Neighbors were able to discover each other's computers and printers (this was before routers were common), and sometimes sniff each other's traffic. This was considered a bad thing, from a customer security and privacy standpoint. Telco providers decided that they did not want to it this way, and effectively made Ethernet connections from customers "point-to-point" to an element in the access network.=20 Today, the access network elements are able to detect a lot of malware traffic (especially DDoS attacks), and disconnect customers that are infected with malware that presents a security / privacy / performance-impacting risk to others. Unfortunately, this is not an infrequent occurrence. If customer traffic were somehow able to bypass these network elements, it would open up neighbors to attacks by infected neighbors. That would be a very bad thing. Furthermore, in general, there just isn't that much neighbor-to-neighbor communication, that would make the savings outweigh the cost of implementation. The only neighbor my home trades a lot of traffic with (my kids and their kids, gaming) is on a separate network, since we use different service providers. Lack of cost justification and security concerns are the reasons why SPs are unlikely to localize traffic within the access network, for general consumers. Barbara > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On=20 > Behalf Of Mark Smith > Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 5:48 AM > To: Alan Kavanagh > Cc: Alastair Johnson; Mikael Abrahamsson; Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de;=20 > v6ops@ops.ietf.org > Subject: Re: AW: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments >=20 > Hi Alan, >=20 > On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:09:37 -0400 > "Alan Kavanagh" wrote: >=20 > > Correct, and this is why SP's are not too keen to have routing > localised > > in the aggregation network before the BNG. > > >=20 > I'd have thought they should be keen to avoid that, unless all of their > customers are all under or likely to all under surveilence at the same > time! >=20 > The technical requirement of LI is that traffic has pass the=20 > interception point. As the majority of people are honest, it seems to=20 > me that optimising the topology to pass the interception point, rather > than for best throughput and lower latency, is wasteful, and an unfair > performance and ultimately a network capex and opex cost burden on=20 > those subscribers who aren't under surveilence, and may never be. Only > traffic that is to be lawfully intercepted should be forced past this=20 > interception point, if it doesn't already naturally traverse it. >=20 > Some topologies would inherently make the BNG the best traffic=20 > interception point e.g. wholesale broadband aggregation via L2TP. > However, for other topologies (e.g. a single VLAN interconnecting=20 > customers' ADSL routers, and an upstream default router for access to=20 > the Internet/other services), traffic can travel direct between=20 > subscribers / their CPE, as the CPEs have an on-link peer relationship. > Should lawful interception be required, either that on-link path could > be changed to traverse the interception point (e.g., by mechanisms=20 > such as forced forwarding), or better yet, the interception point be=20 > the suspect subscriber's point of interconnection i.e. the specific=20 > ADSL service that they're using - as all their traffic is naturally=20 > going to > traverse that point. >=20 > If an SP wants to have a topology that has all traffic traversing the=20 > BNG, or is forced to because of a legal requirement, that's fine. > My argument is that other SPs won't have this requirement so they=20 > shouldn't also be forced to adopt this LI optimal topology - they=20 > should have the freedom to implement a topology optimised for=20 > throughput and low latency. >=20 > So, getting back to the discussion point, I think there would be value > in having a mechanism where downstream CPE can be informed of on-link=20 > peer-CPE's assigned prefixes, without the CPE themselves having > to trust each other's announcements. An idea I had a while back was a=20 > "prefix redirect", similar to an ND host redirect, issued by, and only > accepted from, the upstream on-link default router. Not quite as=20 > optimal as the CPE themselves announcing their prefixes via a routing=20 > protocol, but it would be more scalable - the CPE would only be=20 > maintaining topological knowledge for destinations they're currently=20 > using, rather than for all the destinations they can reach via on-link > peer CPE. >=20 > Regards, > Mark. >=20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On=20 > > Behalf Of Alastair Johnson > > Sent: March 28, 2009 1:41 PM > > To: Mark Smith > > Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson; Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de; v6ops@ops.ietf.org > > Subject: Re: AW: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments > > > > Mark Smith wrote: > > > On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:53:05 +0100 (CET) Mikael Abrahamsson=20 > > > wrote: > > > > > >> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de wrote: > > >> > > >>> Normally the customers are separated from each other by split > > horizont mchanisms and MAC adress translation techniques. > > >> Yes, but that defeats the whole purpose of the proposal from Mark > > >> Smith if I correctly interpret the scenario he proposed. > > >> > > > > > > Yes it would defeat it. The only reason I can think of to require > hair > > > > > pinning of traffic between downstream on-link peer CPE is if your=20 > > > default router is your traffic billing point, and you want to bill > > > (count) the traffic between those CPE. Otherwise you're probably=20 > > > unnecessarily forcing a P2P model connectivity model (i.e. > > > an ATM ADSL backhaul model) onto a multi-access technology (an=20 > > > Ethernet/ADSL backhaul model). > > > > Lawful Interception is another reason that a service provider may > want > > all traffic from a subscriber aggregated to the default router. > There > > may be no way around this, depending on the LI requirements that are > > placed on the service provider, and where the logical interception > point > > is (BNG vs. DSLAM). > > > > aj > > > > ***** The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. GA622 From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 30 11:41:08 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4284628C12B for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:41:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.65 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.156, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 VF+ADB5z6CeP for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:41:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 555C43A6D48 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:41:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LoMPB-0002PJ-VW for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:40:17 +0000 Received: from [171.68.10.87] (helo=sj-iport-5.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LoMP5-0002OL-Tm for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:40:14 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,447,1233532800"; d="scan'208,217";a="69516989" Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Mar 2009 18:40:10 +0000 Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (sj-core-4.cisco.com [171.68.223.138]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2UIeApF032241; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:40:10 -0700 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2UIe9W9004617; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:40:10 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.40]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:40:09 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9B166.F3EF3CFF" Subject: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security should not be a BCP Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:40:09 -0400 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security should not be a BCP Thread-Index: AcmxZvO/kjLyqrpaTDOHViRtuQIktw== From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" To: Cc: "james woodyatt" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2009 18:40:09.0857 (UTC) FILETIME=[F4338F10:01C9B166] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2926; t=1238438410; x=1239302410; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)=22=20 |Subject:=20draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security=20should=2 0not=20be=20a=20BCP |Sender:=20; bh=2lIvkzb2SFYZyUTUbUBmx0GpRkUJDMDWPAtrj0EpLeE=; b=E1zIKual1bqkM/NrtVttRnjgbelA6heEu4UgFc0CWJ4WzESc1fp0dPfhvn KUd0YymLXgugt4aELY4tqcWpYYFWj+7x/A/4MHVXWE3l/R614BEgV1+P5iUT V9/DV9qyUL; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=shemant@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9B166.F3EF3CFF Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I thought before this document moves to a Last Call, it should change to Informational. None of the information in this document can be considered to be current practice, let alone be "best practice" because security from this document hasn't been implemented yet in an IPv6 home router by multiple vendors, let alone be considered as security that is widely deployed and hence be best practice.=20 =20 Hemant ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9B166.F3EF3CFF Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I thought before this document moves to a Last = Call, it should change to Informational.   None of the information in = this document can be considered to be current practice, let alone be = “best practice” because security from this document hasn’t been implemented yet in an IPv6 home router by multiple vendors, let alone be considered as security that is widely deployed and hence be best = practice.

 

Hemant

------_=_NextPart_001_01C9B166.F3EF3CFF-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 30 12:15:12 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6902A3A68BB for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:15:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.415 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.415 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.921, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 ZJip5drAsH1m for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:15:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FB883A6898 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:15:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LoMv4-0005Tm-5d for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 19:13:14 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.70] (helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LoMuy-0005T7-7l for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 19:13:11 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,447,1233532800"; d="scan'208,217";a="163886754" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Mar 2009 19:13:06 +0000 Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (sj-core-4.cisco.com [171.68.223.138]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2UJD6gI004058; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:13:06 -0700 Received: from stealth-10-32-244-218.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-244-218.cisco.com [10.32.244.218]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2UJCB2r002099; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 19:13:06 GMT Cc: , "james woodyatt" Message-Id: From: Fred Baker To: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-5-287665185 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security should not be a BCP Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:13:06 -0700 References: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2943; t=1238440387; x=1239304387; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security=20 should=20not=20be=20a=20BCP |Sender:=20; bh=4U2Dt+bBzrjuPaW+Djj7PNcfUaXUTXSnuqvYVCH7Uew=; b=bgqlpCS0nvgAfyEEAhpTVXUeF3D7cMHwkpXNlC1/vgVaCqr3vXg/lGH944 9l1v8VB8cBVa3N95kz90M7TIcOk0EY+F5huCsmEtWfBs4g0vYDcr2tiwgs+O KolfpLclr4; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: --Apple-Mail-5-287665185 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think that may actually be an outcome of the last call. But your =20 point is well taken. On Mar 30, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote: > I thought before this document moves to a Last Call, it should =20 > change to Informational. None of the information in this document =20= > can be considered to be current practice, let alone be =93best =20 > practice=94 because security from this document hasn=92t been =20 > implemented yet in an IPv6 home router by multiple vendors, let =20 > alone be considered as security that is widely deployed and hence be =20= > best practice. > > Hemant --Apple-Mail-5-287665185 Content-Type: text/html; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I think that may actually be an = outcome of the last call. But your point is well = taken.

On Mar 30, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Hemant Singh = (shemant) wrote:

I thought before this document = moves to a Last Call, it should change to Informational.  =  None of the information in this document can be considered to be = current practice, let alone be =93best practice=94 because security from = this document hasn=92t been implemented yet in an IPv6 home router by = multiple vendors, let alone be considered as security that is widely = deployed and hence be best practice.
In-Reply-To: <35815C929B41D2479A224FE098A27227070BEB0E@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments thread-index: Acmtn8NXBkiWDxs/Q26RWqIFVoFKpQBc40uQAAJe0UgAbhpoYAAlDCOA References: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA08AB7B0B@crexc41p> <35815C929B41D2479A224FE098A27227070BEB0E@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> From: "Stark, Barbara" To: "Alan Kavanagh" , , , CC: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2009 19:55:41.0461 (UTC) FILETIME=[813F7450:01C9B171] Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9B171.81086AA9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Consider a scenario where a home has 2 routers, each connected to a different access network (maybe one is cable and the other DSL). Each SP, in addition to providing Internet access, also provides access to a walled garden of special services accessible only by their subscribers. This walled garden uses an address space not accessible from the Internet. This walled garden might require the CPE router to set up a separate WAN connection, or it might not. =20 Wouldn't the access networks , in this case, need to tell the CPE routers connected to them that this address space is accessible off this network? And wouldn't the CPE Routers need to tell the hosts in the LAN which of these walled garden address spaces gets routed through each of them, so hosts know where to send traffic bound for a server off one or the other of these private networks? =20 I've seen these things rather often in IPv4, where the CPE Router is statically configured (by the SP) to know what to do. But if the address space needs to change, updating the configuration is clumsy. It seems that the tools available to us with IPv6 could allow us to do better. Barbara =20 From: Alan Kavanagh [mailto:alan.kavanagh@ericsson.com]=20 Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 9:18 PM To: Stark, Barbara; wbeebee@cisco.com; jhw@apple.com; v6ops@ops.ietf.org Cc: shemant@cisco.com Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments =20 Hmm, im a little bit confused here or just missing some of this discussion, but what "routes" are you considering being advertised by the BNG/IP_Edge node and what routes would be then advertised from the WAN to the Home LAN network? =20 Alan K =20 ________________________________ From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stark, Barbara Sent: March 27, 2009 4:44 PM To: wbeebee@cisco.com; jhw@apple.com; v6ops@ops.ietf.org Cc: shemant@cisco.com Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments It's not clear to me why manual configuration is specified as *the* way to configure these routes (again, I see RA (RFC 4191) from the access network to the CPE Rtr WAN interface as a way to configure the routes). I propose that if a CPE Rtr gets such routes from the WAN that it automatically put those same route prefixes in its LAN RAs. In which case it would not be off by default, but on by default (it would automatically send specific route info if it has specific route info to send). Barbara ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org To: james woodyatt ; IPv6 Operations Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant) Sent: Fri Mar 27 15:40:09 2009 Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments The new text for MSR's is as follows: "8.7 Multi-homed Host Support (MEDIUM) The CPE Router MAY support RFC4191 on its LAN interfaces. Small consumer embedded multi-homed hosts in the home may not have configurable routing tables. The CPE Router can communicate More Specific Routes (MSRs) to these hosts to allow them to choose a preferred router to send traffic to for traffic destined to specific prefixes configured through manual configuration. Advertisement of MSRs through RAs is turned off by default." - Wes -----Original Message----- From: james woodyatt [mailto:jhw@apple.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:17 PM To: IPv6 Operations Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); Wes Beebee (wbeebee) Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments On Mar 25, 2009, at 16:06, james woodyatt wrote: > > Please let me clarify my remarks and narrow my request somewhat, now > that I've had a chance to review more of the CPE Router draft. I am > only interested in such RFC 4191 messages when a valid PIO has been > received on the WAN link with L=3D1. No other cases are interesting. I take it back. It's interesting in the other cases as well. Two CPE routers attached to the same link will exchange their prefixes with MSR advertisements regardless of whether the RAs from the service provider have PIO options in them. As they should. -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, communications engineering ***** The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. GA622 ***** The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to = which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or = privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other = use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by = persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If = you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the = material from all computers. GA625 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9B171.81086AA9 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

Consider a scenario where a home has 2 routers, each = connected to a different access network (maybe one is cable and the other DSL). = Each SP, in addition to providing Internet access, also provides access to a = walled garden of special services accessible only by their subscribers. This = walled garden uses an address space not accessible from the Internet. This = walled garden might require the CPE router to set up a separate WAN connection, = or it might not.

 

Wouldn’t the access networks , in this case, need = to tell the CPE routers connected to them that this address space is accessible = off this network? And wouldn’t the CPE Routers need to tell the hosts = in the LAN which of these walled garden address spaces gets routed through each = of them, so hosts know where to send traffic bound for a server off one or = the other of these private networks?

 

I’ve seen these things rather often in IPv4, where = the CPE Router is statically configured (by the SP) to know what to do. But if = the address space needs to change, updating the configuration is clumsy. It seems = that the tools available to us with IPv6 could allow us to do = better.

Barbara

 

From:= Alan = Kavanagh [mailto:alan.kavanagh@ericsson.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 9:18 PM
To: Stark, Barbara; wbeebee@cisco.com; jhw@apple.com; = v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Cc: shemant@cisco.com
Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 = comments

 

Hmm, im a little bit confused here or just missing some of = this discussion, but what "routes" are you considering being = advertised by the BNG/IP_Edge node and what routes would be then advertised from the = WAN to the Home LAN network?

 

Alan K

 

From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stark, Barbara
Sent: March 27, 2009 4:44 PM
To: wbeebee@cisco.com; jhw@apple.com; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Cc: shemant@cisco.com
Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 = comments

It's = not clear to me why manual configuration is specified as *the* way to configure = these routes (again, I see RA (RFC 4191) from the access network to the CPE = Rtr WAN interface as a way to configure the routes). I propose that if a CPE Rtr = gets such routes from the WAN that it automatically put those same route = prefixes in its LAN RAs. In which case it would not be off by default, but on by = default (it would automatically send specific route info if it has specific = route info to send).
Barbara

----- Original Message -----
From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
To: james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>; IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant) <shemant@cisco.com>
Sent: Fri Mar 27 15:40:09 2009
Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

The new text for MSR's is as follows:

"8.7 Multi-homed Host Support (MEDIUM)
The CPE Router MAY support RFC4191 on its LAN interfaces.  = Small
consumer embedded multi-homed hosts in the home may not have
configurable routing tables.  The CPE Router can communicate = More
Specific Routes (MSRs) to these hosts to allow them to choose a
preferred router to send traffic to for traffic destined to specific
prefixes configured through manual configuration.  Advertisement of = MSRs
through RAs is turned off by default."

- Wes

-----Original Message-----
From: james woodyatt [mailto:jhw@apple.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:17 PM
To: IPv6 Operations
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

On Mar 25, 2009, at 16:06, james woodyatt wrote:
>
> Please let me clarify my remarks and narrow my request somewhat, = now
> that I've had a chance to review more of the CPE Router = draft.  I am
> only interested in such RFC 4191 messages when a valid PIO has = been
> received on the WAN link with L=3D1.  No other cases are = interesting.

I take it back.  It's interesting in the other cases as well.  = Two CPE
routers attached to the same link will exchange their prefixes with = MSR
advertisements regardless of whether the RAs from the service = provider
have PIO options in them.  As they should.


--
james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
member of technical staff, communications engineering


= *****<= o:p>

= The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to = which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or = privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or = taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities = other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in = error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. = GA622<= o:p>

*****

The information = transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is = addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged = material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or = taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or = entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you = received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the = material from all computers. GA625

 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9B171.81086AA9-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 30 13:02:00 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95DB328C0D6 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:02:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.496 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.496 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.301, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, MANGLED_WANT=2.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 fuIH0Rlo9MQU for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:01:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5023F3A6B3C for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:01:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LoNek-0009rA-3s for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:00:26 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.117] (helo=sj-iport-6.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LoNeT-0009o6-AY for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:00:18 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,448,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="276896762" Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by sj-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Mar 2009 20:00:08 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2UK07ck024188; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:00:07 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2UK072t025762; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:00:07 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.40]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:00:07 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: AW: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:00:05 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0DA1B731@crexc41p> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AW: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: AcmxHwX3qlNrVGIHTJW4KFpsPICkbQAHY7gQAA0cloA= References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com><2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com><2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com><30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com><9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com><20090326192455.dbcedfab.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org><20090328200557.16d30bd9.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org><49CE6126.6080609@sneep.n! et><35815C929B41D2479A224FE098A27227070BEB0C@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> <20090330201805.d06e859f.ipng@69706e6720323030352 d30312d3 1340a.nosens e.org> <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0DA1B731@crexc41p> From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" To: "Stark, Barbara" , "Mark Smith" , "Alan Kavanagh" Cc: "Alastair Johnson" , "Mikael Abrahamsson" , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2009 20:00:07.0701 (UTC) FILETIME=[1FF07450:01C9B172] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=5489; t=1238443207; x=1239307207; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20AW=3A=20draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-0 4=20comments |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Stark,=20Barbara=22=20,=0A=20=20= 20=20=20=20=20=20=22Mark=20Smith=22=20,=0A=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=22 Alan=20Kavanagh=22=20; bh=3NPBvng7pSpbESF32XWMtOKbKNp8Ju89TiTckQJctLg=; b=UcB0tIlupMjSX5g0GxT5qZxUF+fsUXCiTDI8I+CrRDHCHxvmIV2diweAtn 3nSwkKu4draWUaFZbSRgoC0RjFnPdjhltnU3W0zqxd3v5SsYrWLEBj3qkMqo ZX+ibRUewD; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=shemant@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Barbara, What initial cable standards deployment are you talking about where clients in the home in cable modems or hosts behind the modems could talk directly to another cable modem in a neighboring home? For over 10 years, in docsis networks since docsis 1.0, I don't see such behavior on a routed CMTS - this thread is also focused on routed networks because at the DSL first hop IPv6 router, we have a routed network. Also, what you have said below about security or privacy was something that I sent already on 03/26. This is what I had said. =20 "At this point I would like you all to see this text below that I and Wes wrote in an expired draft of draft-wbeebee-on-link-and-off-link-determination-01.txt. [3. Router Models The Redirect Clarifications section clarifies RFC 4861 [ND] host and router behavior for an aggregation router deployment. The Aggregation Router Deployment Model section presents a possible aggregation router deployment model for IPv6 and discusses its properties with respect to ND. Aggregation routers can service more than 100,000 subscribers. Due to scaling considerations, any NS for global address resolution from any host to any other host should not reach the aggregation router. 3.1. Aggregation Router Deployment Model A property of routed aggregation networks is that hosts cannot directly communicate with each other even if they share the same prefix. Physical connectivity between the aggregation router and the modems prevents hosts behind modems to communicate directly with each other. Hosts send their traffic to aggregation router. This design is motivated by scaling and security considerations. If every host could receive all traffic from every other host, then the subscriber's privacy would be violated and the amount of bandwidth available for each subscriber would be very small. That is why hosts communicate between each other through the aggregation router, which is also the IPv6 first-hop router. For scaling reasons, any NS to resolve any address other than that of the default router should not reach the aggregation router. +-----+ | | |Aggre+----(Rtr CPE)----Host1 Core----WAN----+gator| | Rtr | | +----(Br CPE)----(Cust Rtr)----Host2 +-----+ Figure 1. In the figure above, the customer premises equipment (CPE) is managed by the ISP and is deployed behind an aggregation router that is an IPv6 first-hop router and also a DHCPv6 relay agent. IPv6 CPEs are either IPv6 routers (Rtr CPE) or IPv6 bridges (Br CPE). If the customer premises uses a bridge CPE, then a router (Cust Rtr) is needed. All hosts reside behind a router CPE or a customer router. No NS to resolve any address other than that of the default router Singh & Beebee Expires July 4, 2008 [Page 7] Internet-Draft ND On-link Determination January 2008 will reach the aggregation router from any device on the customer side of the aggregator. CPEs do not communicate with each other in this deployment model since a CPE does not run any applications that need to communicate with other CPEs. Hosts do communicate with each other, but every host is off-link to any other host on the aggregation router.] Hemant -----Original Message----- From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stark, Barbara Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 10:08 AM To: Mark Smith; Alan Kavanagh Cc: Alastair Johnson; Mikael Abrahamsson; Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de; v6ops@ops.ietf.org Subject: RE: AW: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments My remembrance of why SPs aren't keen to localize routing is quite different. Originally, cable operators had neighbors all on the same Ethernet network. Neighbors were able to discover each other's computers and printers (this was before routers were common), and sometimes sniff each other's traffic. This was considered a bad thing, from a customer security and privacy standpoint. Telco providers decided that they did not want to it this way, and effectively made Ethernet connections from customers "point-to-point" to an element in the access network.=20 Today, the access network elements are able to detect a lot of malware traffic (especially DDoS attacks), and disconnect customers that are infected with malware that presents a security / privacy / performance-impacting risk to others. Unfortunately, this is not an infrequent occurrence. If customer traffic were somehow able to bypass these network elements, it would open up neighbors to attacks by infected neighbors. That would be a very bad thing. Furthermore, in general, there just isn't that much neighbor-to-neighbor communication, that would make the savings outweigh the cost of implementation. The only neighbor my home trades a lot of traffic with (my kids and their kids, gaming) is on a separate network, since we use different service providers. Lack of cost justification and security concerns are the reasons why SPs are unlikely to localize traffic within the access network, for general consumers. Barbara From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 30 13:06:41 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B71DD3A6B3C for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:06:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.694 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.694 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 67XBgZ1p8BO4 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:06:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 081593A6358 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:06:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LoNiz-000AO8-SA for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:04:49 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.72] (helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LoNin-000AMl-91 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:04:42 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,448,1233532800"; d="scan'208,217";a="148331159" Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Mar 2009 20:04:36 +0000 Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (sj-core-4.cisco.com [171.68.223.138]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2UK4amG012455; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:04:36 -0700 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2UK4aCq001629; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:04:39 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.118]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:04:35 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9B172.BF470F11" Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:04:34 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0DA1B8FA@crexc41p> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: Acmtn8NXBkiWDxs/Q26RWqIFVoFKpQBc40uQAAJe0UgAbhpoYAAlDCOAAAItY3A= References: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA08AB7B0B@crexc41p> <35815C929B41D2479A224FE098A27227070BEB0E@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0DA1B8FA@crexc41p> From: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" To: "Stark, Barbara" , "Alan Kavanagh" , , Cc: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2009 20:04:35.0226 (UTC) FILETIME=[BF6587A0:01C9B172] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=19407; t=1238443476; x=1239307476; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=wbeebee@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Wes=20Beebee=20(wbeebee)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20comm ents |Sender:=20; bh=nkG7e6EUDkH+FQMMkWXMAC2rQGTyTw4wmF7/CYax7Pw=; b=HRHvyXAGIy+8+YluVIG25G88qTKzX0cJArorLAli9Z5qA+SVy0PQqjOkHk L5n2hYWYJKs4qrYR9tOaT3a0yX/CEA8seFK1iqq9v4hSmP7JNB80tADk+xrg X47WPsUu2D; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=wbeebee@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9B172.BF470F11 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Manual configuration that may be required to be updated by the Service Provider may be exposed through SNMP in the CPE Router. =20 Therefore, we could provide a way to insert routes into the MSR table through SNMP queries. =20 However, other routes may need to be configured by the end-user, so the MSR table may need to be exposed to the end user as well. =20 - Wes ________________________________ From: Stark, Barbara [mailto:bs7652@att.com]=20 Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 3:56 PM To: Alan Kavanagh; Wes Beebee (wbeebee); jhw@apple.com; v6ops@ops.ietf.org Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant) Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Consider a scenario where a home has 2 routers, each connected to a different access network (maybe one is cable and the other DSL). Each SP, in addition to providing Internet access, also provides access to a walled garden of special services accessible only by their subscribers. This walled garden uses an address space not accessible from the Internet. This walled garden might require the CPE router to set up a separate WAN connection, or it might not. =20 Wouldn't the access networks , in this case, need to tell the CPE routers connected to them that this address space is accessible off this network? And wouldn't the CPE Routers need to tell the hosts in the LAN which of these walled garden address spaces gets routed through each of them, so hosts know where to send traffic bound for a server off one or the other of these private networks? =20 I've seen these things rather often in IPv4, where the CPE Router is statically configured (by the SP) to know what to do. But if the address space needs to change, updating the configuration is clumsy. It seems that the tools available to us with IPv6 could allow us to do better. Barbara =20 From: Alan Kavanagh [mailto:alan.kavanagh@ericsson.com]=20 Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 9:18 PM To: Stark, Barbara; wbeebee@cisco.com; jhw@apple.com; v6ops@ops.ietf.org Cc: shemant@cisco.com Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments =20 Hmm, im a little bit confused here or just missing some of this discussion, but what "routes" are you considering being advertised by the BNG/IP_Edge node and what routes would be then advertised from the WAN to the Home LAN network? =20 Alan K =20 ________________________________ From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stark, Barbara Sent: March 27, 2009 4:44 PM To: wbeebee@cisco.com; jhw@apple.com; v6ops@ops.ietf.org Cc: shemant@cisco.com Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments It's not clear to me why manual configuration is specified as *the* way to configure these routes (again, I see RA (RFC 4191) from the access network to the CPE Rtr WAN interface as a way to configure the routes). I propose that if a CPE Rtr gets such routes from the WAN that it automatically put those same route prefixes in its LAN RAs. In which case it would not be off by default, but on by default (it would automatically send specific route info if it has specific route info to send). Barbara ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org To: james woodyatt ; IPv6 Operations Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant) Sent: Fri Mar 27 15:40:09 2009 Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments The new text for MSR's is as follows: "8.7 Multi-homed Host Support (MEDIUM) The CPE Router MAY support RFC4191 on its LAN interfaces. Small consumer embedded multi-homed hosts in the home may not have configurable routing tables. The CPE Router can communicate More Specific Routes (MSRs) to these hosts to allow them to choose a preferred router to send traffic to for traffic destined to specific prefixes configured through manual configuration. Advertisement of MSRs through RAs is turned off by default." - Wes -----Original Message----- From: james woodyatt [mailto:jhw@apple.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:17 PM To: IPv6 Operations Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); Wes Beebee (wbeebee) Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments On Mar 25, 2009, at 16:06, james woodyatt wrote: > > Please let me clarify my remarks and narrow my request somewhat, now > that I've had a chance to review more of the CPE Router draft. I am > only interested in such RFC 4191 messages when a valid PIO has been > received on the WAN link with L=3D1. No other cases are interesting. I take it back. It's interesting in the other cases as well. Two CPE routers attached to the same link will exchange their prefixes with MSR advertisements regardless of whether the RAs from the service provider have PIO options in them. As they should. -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, communications engineering ***** The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. GA622 ***** The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. GA625 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9B172.BF470F11 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: = draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments
Manual configuration that may be required to be = updated by=20 the Service Provider may be exposed through SNMP in the CPE=20 Router.
 
Therefore, we could provide a way to insert = routes into the=20 MSR table through SNMP queries.
 
However, other routes may need to be configured = by the=20 end-user, so the MSR table may need to be exposed to the end user as=20 well.
 
- Wes

From: Stark, Barbara = [mailto:bs7652@att.com]=20
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 3:56 PM
To: Alan = Kavanagh; Wes=20 Beebee (wbeebee); jhw@apple.com; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Hemant = Singh=20 (shemant)
Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20 comments

Consider=20 a scenario where a home has 2 routers, each connected to a different = access=20 network (maybe one is cable and the other DSL). Each SP, in addition to=20 providing Internet access, also provides access to a walled garden of = special=20 services accessible only by their subscribers. This walled garden uses = an=20 address space not accessible from the Internet. This walled garden might = require=20 the CPE router to set up a separate WAN connection, or it might=20 not.

 

Wouldn’t=20 the access networks , in this case, need to tell the CPE routers = connected to=20 them that this address space is accessible off this network? And = wouldn’t the=20 CPE Routers need to tell the hosts in the LAN which of these walled = garden=20 address spaces gets routed through each of them, so hosts know where to = send=20 traffic bound for a server off one or the other of these private=20 networks?

 

I’ve=20 seen these things rather often in IPv4, where the CPE Router is = statically=20 configured (by the SP) to know what to do. But if the address space = needs to=20 change, updating the configuration is clumsy. It seems that the tools = available=20 to us with IPv6 could allow us to do better.

Barbara

 

From: Alan = Kavanagh=20 [mailto:alan.kavanagh@ericsson.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 29, = 2009 9:18=20 PM
To: Stark, Barbara; wbeebee@cisco.com; jhw@apple.com;=20 v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Cc: shemant@cisco.com
Subject: = RE:=20 draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 = comments

 

Hmm, im=20 a little bit confused here or just missing some of this discussion, but = what=20 "routes" are you considering being advertised by the BNG/IP_Edge node = and what=20 routes would be then advertised from the WAN to the Home LAN=20 network?

 

Alan=20 K

 

From:=20 owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf = Of=20 Stark, Barbara
Sent: March 27, 2009 4:44 PM
To:=20 wbeebee@cisco.com; jhw@apple.com; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Cc:=20 shemant@cisco.com
Subject: Re: = draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20 comments

It's = not clear to=20 me why manual configuration is specified as *the* way to configure these = routes=20 (again, I see RA (RFC 4191) from the access network to the CPE Rtr WAN = interface=20 as a way to configure the routes). I propose that if a CPE Rtr gets such = routes=20 from the WAN that it automatically put those same route prefixes in its = LAN RAs.=20 In which case it would not be off by default, but on by default (it = would=20 automatically send specific route info if it has specific route info to=20 send).
Barbara

----- Original Message -----
From:=20 owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
To: james = woodyatt=20 <jhw@apple.com>; IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Cc: = Hemant=20 Singh (shemant) <shemant@cisco.com>
Sent: Fri Mar 27 15:40:09=20 2009
Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 = comments

The new=20 text for MSR's is as follows:

"8.7 Multi-homed Host Support=20 (MEDIUM)
The CPE Router MAY support RFC4191 on its LAN = interfaces. =20 Small
consumer embedded multi-homed hosts in the home may not=20 have
configurable routing tables.  The CPE Router can = communicate=20 More
Specific Routes (MSRs) to these hosts to allow them to choose=20 a
preferred router to send traffic to for traffic destined to=20 specific
prefixes configured through manual configuration. =20 Advertisement of MSRs
through RAs is turned off by default."

- = Wes

-----Original Message-----
From: james woodyatt [mailto:jhw@apple.com]
Sent: = Wednesday, March=20 25, 2009 7:17 PM
To: IPv6 Operations
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); = Wes=20 Beebee (wbeebee)
Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20 comments

On Mar 25, 2009, at 16:06, james woodyatt = wrote:
>
>=20 Please let me clarify my remarks and narrow my request somewhat, = now
>=20 that I've had a chance to review more of the CPE Router draft.  I=20 am
> only interested in such RFC 4191 messages when a valid PIO = has=20 been
> received on the WAN link with L=3D1.  No other cases = are=20 interesting.

I take it back.  It's interesting in the other = cases as=20 well.  Two CPE
routers attached to the same link will exchange = their=20 prefixes with MSR
advertisements regardless of whether the RAs from = the=20 service provider
have PIO options in them.  As they=20 should.


--
james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
member = of=20 technical staff, communications = engineering


*****

The=20 information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to = which it is=20 addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged = material.=20 Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of = any=20 action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other = than the=20 intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please = contact=20 the sender and delete the material from all computers. GA622

*****

The information = transmitted is=20 intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may = contain=20 confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review,=20 retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action = in=20 reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the = intended=20 recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact = the=20 sender and delete the material from all computers.=20 GA625

 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9B172.BF470F11-- From macedolucasoma@telesp.com.br Mon Mar 30 13:17:55 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8037C3A6968; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:17:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.08 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.08 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_SPEC_ROLEX_NOV5A=1.062, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 KkMScjh4R-p3; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:17:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from m83-178-3-86.cust.tele2.se (m83-178-3-86.cust.tele2.se [83.178.3.86]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1E6A43A6D82; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:17:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 32.232.160.60 by smtp.83.178.3.86; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:14:28 -0100 Message-ID: <625qr877315UWQtools-team@ietf.org> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:18:28 -0500 From: "Marietta Glenn" To: "Rory Herndon" Subject: Rep will save you thousands Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit It's the perfect time to get that dream watch you've fantasized about. But there's no need to empty your bank account while doing it! http://www.bardboth.com/ Take advantage of Exqu1site Reps tremendous specials, and get yourself a superb designer watch imitation for just a couple of hundred bucks. Plus an extra 15 percent discount when you get two time pieces in the same purchase! http://www.bardboth.com/ Get ready to feel like a kid in a candy store when you see our incredible collection of fine reproduction timepieces at Exqu1site Reps! Come on, get started now! From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 30 13:19:23 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CD493A6968 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:19:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.383 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.383 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.888, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 bSyfLdBzta94 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:19:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABBAA3A6846 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:19:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LoNvU-000Bok-RJ for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:17:44 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.71] (helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LoNvO-000Bnu-9l for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:17:41 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,448,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="148535128" Received: from sj-dkim-1.cisco.com ([171.71.179.21]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Mar 2009 20:17:37 +0000 Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2UKHbQ8005227; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:17:37 -0700 Received: from stealth-10-32-244-218.cisco.com (stealth-10-32-244-218.cisco.com [10.32.244.218]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2UKHb3K009449; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:17:37 GMT Cc: "Alan Kavanagh" , "Alastair Johnson" , "Mikael Abrahamsson" , , Message-Id: From: Fred Baker To: Mark Smith In-Reply-To: <20090330201805.d06e859f.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: AW: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:17:36 -0700 References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> <9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com> <20090326192455.dbcedfab.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> <20090328200557.16d30bd9.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> <49CE6126.6080609@sneep.n! et> <35815C929B41D2479A224FE098A27227070BEB0C@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> <20090330201805.d06e859f.ipng@6970 6e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1273; t=1238444257; x=1239308257; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim1004; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20AW=3A=20draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-0 4=20comments |Sender:=20; bh=N4X2CKmWHVjYBP14GcgeekM28jLNTl+L+N6rFz6AJLU=; b=h8J1wjdZlWGzvouyz3xk5N7pG235NmHNJ7geAMGWW9Pi+emb3fPfq9Ga6H BayO6x/5lFbERm+0FgVfXNjQAy0LQgCTkjL7PkgQLoZYE8qFhi9/84xwYcQB /p2UXPK2nQNuuAajQRXDBFo/CZ9UeT+AnLUjeSXEBXVakyNWqH4Fw=; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: On Mar 30, 2009, at 2:48 AM, Mark Smith wrote: > I'd have thought they should be keen to avoid that, unless all of > their > customers are all under or likely to all under surveilence at the same > time! ISP architectures are not designed around surveillance; they are organized for control. That said, if a subpoena comes in, the effect of surveillance is not supposed to be detectable by the surveillance subject. If routing suddenly changed, and especially if local connectivity that the surveillance subject was using disappeared, that would be a pretty major tip-off. In case you're questioning the "control" aspects, the issue is primarily that an ISP offers services to its customers under an SLA, and is responsible to enforce the SLA. For example, if the are guaranteeing me, or making representations to me of, a specific bandwidth, they can't allow another customer to do something that prevents me from getting that amount of bandwidth. As a result, they will generally run traffic on networks they operate through equipment that enables them to have the level of control they need, and they reserve the right (as RFC 2309 suggests) to force top talkers to back off when necessary to make that happen. From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 30 13:51:20 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BD803A6D73 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:51:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.651 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.651 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.456, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, MANGLED_WANT=2.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 jJlFHTPBZt9A for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:51:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10CD53A6D20 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:51:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LoOSE-000F5U-66 for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:51:34 +0000 Received: from [216.82.241.147] (helo=mail146.messagelabs.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LoOS8-000F4g-08 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:51:30 +0000 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: bs7652@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-11.tower-146.messagelabs.com!1238446287!17105843!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.0.0; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.53] Received: (qmail 16895 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2009 20:51:27 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.53) by server-11.tower-146.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 30 Mar 2009 20:51:27 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n2UKpPxZ023385; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:51:25 -0400 Received: from 01GAF5142010624.AD.BLS.COM (01GAF5142010624.ad.bls.com [139.76.131.91]) by mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with SMTP id n2UKpJrj023288; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:51:19 -0400 Received: from 01NC27689010627.AD.BLS.COM ([90.144.44.202]) by 01GAF5142010624.AD.BLS.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:51:19 -0400 Received: from 01NC27689010641.AD.BLS.COM ([90.144.44.103]) by 01NC27689010627.AD.BLS.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:51:18 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: AW: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:51:15 -0400 Message-ID: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0DA1B927@crexc41p> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AW: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: AcmxHwX3qlNrVGIHTJW4KFpsPICkbQAHY7gQAA0cloAAALZxEA== References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com><2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com><2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com><30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com><9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com><20090326192455.dbcedfab.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org><20090328200557.16d30bd9.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org><49CE6126.6080609@sneep.n! et><35815C929B41D2479A224FE098A27227070BEB0C@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> <20090330201805.d06e859f.ipng@69706e6720323030352 d30312d3 1340a.nosens e.org> <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0DA1B731@crexc41p> From: "Stark, Barbara" To: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" , "Mark Smith" , "Alan Kavanagh" Cc: "Alastair Johnson" , "Mikael Abrahamsson" , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2009 20:51:18.0563 (UTC) FILETIME=[4650CF30:01C9B179] Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Hemant, I was simply clarifying the history of why telco SPs currently use "point-to-point" Ethernet connections, because other emails had implied it was for governmental eavesdropping purposes. I meant no insult, and had no agenda, other than to explain that eavesdropping was not the primary goal. Governmental eavesdropping, as a justification for requirements, leaves a bad taste in many people's mouths, and is rather unpopular. Security and privacy are considered worthy goals. I was trying to turn the tone of justification from being negative (governmental eavesdropping) to positive (security and privacy). Although DOCSIS 1.0 did include support for encryption, in the old days, many providers did not enable this security, and there were many anecdotes of neighbors seeing each other's computers. The encryption capabilities of DOCSIS 1.0 were just an option, and not mandatory. Again, this is really old (10 years +) history; but this history was key in driving telco service providers to architecting access networks that did not have shared Ethernet links among customers. This isn't intended as an insult or a slam against the cable industry. I haven't heard any of these anecdotes in years, and have no doubt that cable access is quite secure at this time. But history is history. Here is a website that describes some of this old history, in case you're curious: http://www.securityfocus.com/news/7977. I do not see that this history has any impact on the draft. The requirements, from my perspective, are sufficiently justified. Since there doesn't seem to be a request for any changes to the draft, based on this thread, I don't think it's a useful thread to pursue. Barbara > -----Original Message----- > From: Hemant Singh (shemant) [mailto:shemant@cisco.com] > Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 4:00 PM > To: Stark, Barbara; Mark Smith; Alan Kavanagh > Cc: Alastair Johnson; Mikael Abrahamsson; Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de; > v6ops@ops.ietf.org > Subject: RE: AW: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments >=20 > Barbara, >=20 > What initial cable standards deployment are you talking about where > clients in the home in cable modems or hosts behind the modems could > talk directly to another cable modem in a neighboring home? For over > 10 > years, in docsis networks since docsis 1.0, I don't see such behavior > on > a routed CMTS - this thread is also focused on routed networks because > at the DSL first hop IPv6 router, we have a routed network. Also, what > you have said below about security or privacy was something that I sent > already on 03/26. This is what I had said. >=20 > "At this point I would like you all to see this text below that I and > Wes wrote in an expired draft of > draft-wbeebee-on-link-and-off-link-determination-01.txt. > [3. Router Models >=20 > The Redirect Clarifications section clarifies RFC 4861 [ND] host and > router behavior for an aggregation router deployment. >=20 > The Aggregation Router Deployment Model section presents a possible > aggregation router deployment model for IPv6 and discusses its > properties with respect to ND. Aggregation routers can service more > than 100,000 subscribers. Due to scaling considerations, any NS for > global address resolution from any host to any other host should not > reach the aggregation router. >=20 > 3.1. Aggregation Router Deployment Model >=20 > A property of routed aggregation networks is that hosts cannot > directly communicate with each other even if they share the same > prefix. Physical connectivity between the aggregation router and > the > modems prevents hosts behind modems to communicate directly with > each > other. Hosts send their traffic to aggregation router. This design > is motivated by scaling and security considerations. If every host > could receive all traffic from every other host, then the > subscriber's privacy would be violated and the amount of bandwidth > available for each subscriber would be very small. That is why > hosts > communicate between each other through the aggregation router, which > is also the IPv6 first-hop router. >=20 > For scaling reasons, any NS to resolve any address other than that > of > the default router should not reach the aggregation router. >=20 >=20 > +-----+ > | | > |Aggre+----(Rtr CPE)----Host1 > Core----WAN----+gator| > | Rtr | > | +----(Br CPE)----(Cust Rtr)----Host2 > +-----+ >=20 > Figure 1. >=20 > In the figure above, the customer premises equipment (CPE) is > managed > by the ISP and is deployed behind an aggregation router that is an > IPv6 first-hop router and also a DHCPv6 relay agent. IPv6 CPEs are > either IPv6 routers (Rtr CPE) or IPv6 bridges (Br CPE). If the > customer premises uses a bridge CPE, then a router (Cust Rtr) is > needed. All hosts reside behind a router CPE or a customer router. >=20 > No NS to resolve any address other than that of the default router >=20 >=20 >=20 > Singh & Beebee Expires July 4, 2008 [Page > 7] >=20 >=20 > Internet-Draft ND On-link Determination January > 2008 >=20 >=20 > will reach the aggregation router from any device on the customer > side of the aggregator. CPEs do not communicate with each other in > this deployment model since a CPE does not run any applications that > need to communicate with other CPEs. Hosts do communicate with each > other, but every host is off-link to any other host on the > aggregation router.] >=20 > Hemant >=20 >=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Stark, Barbara > Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 10:08 AM > To: Mark Smith; Alan Kavanagh > Cc: Alastair Johnson; Mikael Abrahamsson; Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de; > v6ops@ops.ietf.org > Subject: RE: AW: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments >=20 > My remembrance of why SPs aren't keen to localize routing is quite > different. > Originally, cable operators had neighbors all on the same Ethernet > network. Neighbors were able to discover each other's computers and > printers (this was before routers were common), and sometimes sniff > each > other's traffic. This was considered a bad thing, from a customer > security and privacy standpoint. Telco providers decided that they did > not want to it this way, and effectively made Ethernet connections from > customers "point-to-point" to an element in the access network. >=20 > Today, the access network elements are able to detect a lot of malware > traffic (especially DDoS attacks), and disconnect customers that are > infected with malware that presents a security / privacy / > performance-impacting risk to others. Unfortunately, this is not an > infrequent occurrence. If customer traffic were somehow able to bypass > these network elements, it would open up neighbors to attacks by > infected neighbors. That would be a very bad thing. >=20 > Furthermore, in general, there just isn't that much neighbor-to- > neighbor > communication, that would make the savings outweigh the cost of > implementation. The only neighbor my home trades a lot of traffic with > (my kids and their kids, gaming) is on a separate network, since we use > different service providers. >=20 > Lack of cost justification and security concerns are the reasons why > SPs > are unlikely to localize traffic within the access network, for general > consumers. > Barbara >=20 From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 30 13:51:24 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9CBE3A6D20 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:51:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.627 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.627 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_EQ_AU=0.377, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RDNS_NONE=0.1, RELAY_IS_203=0.994] 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 z1M1PTKD2xlp for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:51:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 221343A6C9B for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:51:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LoOQM-000Eof-Aj for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:49:38 +0000 Received: from [203.6.132.75] (helo=smtp1.mail.adnap.net.au) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LoOQF-000Enb-DW for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:49:35 +0000 Received: from 219-90-172-207.ip.adam.com.au ([219.90.172.207] helo=opy.nosense.org) by smtp1.mail.adnap.net.au with esmtp (Exim 4.63 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LoOPz-0001bU-5e; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 07:19:15 +1030 Received: from opy.nosense.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by opy.nosense.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8AB6549298; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 07:19:14 +1030 (CST) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 07:19:14 +1030 From: Mark Smith To: "Stark, Barbara" Cc: "Alan Kavanagh" , "Alastair Johnson" , "Mikael Abrahamsson" , , Subject: Re: AW: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Message-Id: <20090331071914.e71ea6e7.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> In-Reply-To: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0DA1B731@crexc41p> References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com> <2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com> <30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com> <9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com> <20090326192455.dbcedfab.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> <20090328200557.16d30bd9.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org> <49CE6126.6080609@sneep.n! et> <35815C929B41D2479A224FE098A27227070BEB0C@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> <20090330201805.d06e859f.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosens e.org> <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0DA1B731@crexc41p> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.16.0; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) X-Location: Lower Mitcham, South Australia, 5062 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Hi Barbara, On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:08:02 -0400 "Stark, Barbara" wrote: (As a disclosure, I work for an SP with a reasonable sized ADSL network with Ethernet backhaul, but I'm participating here in my own time.) > My remembrance of why SPs aren't keen to localize routing is quite > different. > Originally, cable operators had neighbors all on the same Ethernet > network. Neighbors were able to discover each other's computers and > printers (this was before routers were common), and sometimes sniff each > other's traffic. This was considered a bad thing, from a customer > security and privacy standpoint. Telco providers decided that they did > not want to it this way, and effectively made Ethernet connections from > customers "point-to-point" to an element in the access network. > It is useful to remember history, but it's not the situation today - and we're talking about designs trying to suit today's and near future situations and requirements. I'm not sure about cable CPE, but all ADSL CPE these days is a router, doing IPv4 NAT and firewalling, by default, although they can usually be configured to act as a bridge. While the bridging capability for existing CPE might be useful as a deployment option for IPv6, I think eventually all IPv6 CPE will be routed. SPs will probably in effect demand it, because it makes it easier to scale subscriber counts within the same part of the network topology. > Today, the access network elements are able to detect a lot of malware > traffic (especially DDoS attacks), and disconnect customers that are > infected with malware that presents a security / privacy / > performance-impacting risk to others. Unfortunately, this is not an > infrequent occurrence. If customer traffic were somehow able to bypass > these network elements, it would open up neighbors to attacks by > infected neighbors. That would be a very bad thing. > So, is their any reason why that functionality must be located in the BNG? Alan's company already make ADSL DSLAMs that perform an amount of IP based traffic processing, despite them not participating in the IP forwarding process. I'm guessing a lot of the DPI boxes don't participate in IP forwarding either, so in the least, they don't show up in traceroute output. It's all layer violations of course, but that seems to be being more accepted for security / traffic policy enforcement reasons today (e.g. RA guard, DHCP snooping/modificaton on switches/ADSL DSLAMs etc.) > Furthermore, in general, there just isn't that much neighbor-to-neighbor > communication, that would make the savings outweigh the cost of > implementation. The only neighbor my home trades a lot of traffic with > (my kids and their kids, gaming) is on a separate network, since we use > different service providers. > Peer-to-peer traffic e.g. bittorrent etc., is a strong candidate for network locality. The only thing that doesn't seem to exist is P2P applications that make network topology aware peer selection, and I think the IETF are already working on that. Once they exist, I think there will be considerably more local intra-SP traffic than there is today. > Lack of cost justification and security concerns are the reasons why SPs > are unlikely to localize traffic within the access network, for general > consumers. Maybe this is what we're tripping up on. Different topologies and network densities have different optimal forwarding paths. If the BNG is colocated with the broadband layer 2 infrastructure in an exchange / central office, then the overhead of traffic being forwarded via the BNG, albeit increased, isn't all that significant. However, if the BNG is located at some more central aggregation point, then having traffic that can stay within the exchange/C.O. by e.g., going direct between customer CPE at layer 2, saves both BNG resources and sometimes significant backhaul bandwidth costs. That might not be a significant cost today, but once P2P app become (layer 3) topology aware, I think that'll increase significantly the amount of traffic that will be being unnecessarily hair-pinned via an off-site device. Regards, Mark. > Barbara > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On > > Behalf Of Mark Smith > > Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 5:48 AM > > To: Alan Kavanagh > > Cc: Alastair Johnson; Mikael Abrahamsson; Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de; > > v6ops@ops.ietf.org > > Subject: Re: AW: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments > > > > Hi Alan, > > > > On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:09:37 -0400 > > "Alan Kavanagh" wrote: > > > > > Correct, and this is why SP's are not too keen to have routing > > localised > > > in the aggregation network before the BNG. > > > > > > > I'd have thought they should be keen to avoid that, unless all of > their > > customers are all under or likely to all under surveilence at the same > > time! > > > > The technical requirement of LI is that traffic has pass the > > interception point. As the majority of people are honest, it seems to > > me that optimising the topology to pass the interception point, rather > > than for best throughput and lower latency, is wasteful, and an unfair > > performance and ultimately a network capex and opex cost burden on > > those subscribers who aren't under surveilence, and may never be. Only > > traffic that is to be lawfully intercepted should be forced past this > > interception point, if it doesn't already naturally traverse it. > > > > Some topologies would inherently make the BNG the best traffic > > interception point e.g. wholesale broadband aggregation via L2TP. > > However, for other topologies (e.g. a single VLAN interconnecting > > customers' ADSL routers, and an upstream default router for access to > > the Internet/other services), traffic can travel direct between > > subscribers / their CPE, as the CPEs have an on-link peer > relationship. > > Should lawful interception be required, either that on-link path could > > be changed to traverse the interception point (e.g., by mechanisms > > such as forced forwarding), or better yet, the interception point be > > the > > suspect subscriber's point of interconnection i.e. the specific ADSL > > service that they're using - as all their traffic is naturally going > to > > traverse that point. > > > > If an SP wants to have a topology that has all traffic traversing the > > BNG, or is forced to because of a legal requirement, that's fine. > > My argument is that other SPs won't have this requirement so they > > shouldn't also be forced to adopt this LI optimal topology - they > > should have the freedom to implement a topology optimised for > > throughput and low latency. > > > > So, getting back to the discussion point, I think there would be > > value in having a mechanism where downstream CPE can be informed of > > on-link peer-CPE's assigned prefixes, without the CPE themselves > having > > to trust each other's announcements. An idea I had a while back was a > > "prefix redirect", similar to an ND host redirect, issued by, and only > > accepted from, the upstream on-link default router. Not quite as > > optimal as the CPE themselves announcing their prefixes via a routing > > protocol, but it would be more scalable - the CPE would only be > > maintaining topological knowledge for destinations they're currently > > using, rather than for all the destinations they can reach via on-link > > peer CPE. > > > > Regards, > > Mark. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On > > > Behalf Of Alastair Johnson > > > Sent: March 28, 2009 1:41 PM > > > To: Mark Smith > > > Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson; Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de; v6ops@ops.ietf.org > > > Subject: Re: AW: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments > > > > > > Mark Smith wrote: > > > > On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:53:05 +0100 (CET) Mikael Abrahamsson > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Normally the customers are separated from each other by split > > > horizont mchanisms and MAC adress translation techniques. > > > >> Yes, but that defeats the whole purpose of the proposal from Mark > > > >> Smith if I correctly interpret the scenario he proposed. > > > >> > > > > > > > > Yes it would defeat it. The only reason I can think of to require > > hair > > > > > > > pinning of traffic between downstream on-link peer CPE is if your > > > > default router is your traffic billing point, and you want to bill > > > > (count) the traffic between those CPE. Otherwise you're probably > > > > unnecessarily forcing a P2P model connectivity model (i.e. > > > > an ATM ADSL backhaul model) onto a multi-access technology (an > > > > Ethernet/ADSL backhaul model). > > > > > > Lawful Interception is another reason that a service provider may > > want > > > all traffic from a subscriber aggregated to the default router. > > There > > > may be no way around this, depending on the LI requirements that are > > > placed on the service provider, and where the logical interception > > point > > > is (BNG vs. DSLAM). > > > > > > aj > > > > > > > > > ***** > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. GA622 > > From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 30 14:15:27 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E28303A6D9A for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:15:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -104.734 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.734 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.240, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 wjxyf-Fjky4g for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:15:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D10993A6D98 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:15:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LoOo5-000IA5-58 for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:14:09 +0000 Received: from [216.82.250.147] (helo=mail129.messagelabs.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LoOns-000I8Z-EP for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:14:02 +0000 X-VirusChecked: Checked X-Env-Sender: bs7652@att.com X-Msg-Ref: server-15.tower-129.messagelabs.com!1238447634!17637632!1 X-StarScan-Version: 6.0.0; banners=-,-,- X-Originating-IP: [144.160.20.53] Received: (qmail 2060 invoked from network); 30 Mar 2009 21:13:54 -0000 Received: from sbcsmtp6.sbc.com (HELO mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com) (144.160.20.53) by server-15.tower-129.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 30 Mar 2009 21:13:54 -0000 Received: from enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n2ULDrTs005716; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:13:54 -0400 Received: from 01GAF5142010624.AD.BLS.COM (01GAF5142010624.ad.bls.com [139.76.131.91]) by mlph073.enaf.sfdc.sbc.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with SMTP id n2ULDmtQ005584; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:13:49 -0400 Received: from 01NC27689010627.AD.BLS.COM ([90.144.44.202]) by 01GAF5142010624.AD.BLS.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:13:48 -0400 Received: from 01NC27689010641.AD.BLS.COM ([90.144.44.103]) by 01NC27689010627.AD.BLS.COM with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2499); Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:13:48 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9B17C.6A83FC17" Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:13:45 -0400 Message-ID: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0DA1B935@crexc41p> In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: Acmtn8NXBkiWDxs/Q26RWqIFVoFKpQBc40uQAAJe0UgAbhpoYAAlDCOAAAItY3AAAeBtEA== References: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA08AB7B0B@crexc41p> <35815C929B41D2479A224FE098A27227070BEB0E@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0DA1B8FA@crexc41p> From: "Stark, Barbara" To: "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" , "Alan Kavanagh" , , Cc: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2009 21:13:48.0157 (UTC) FILETIME=[6ABC82D0:01C9B17C] Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9B17C.6A83FC17 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable SPs always have the option of using remote device configuration protocols (e.g. SNMP, TR-069) to configure CPE routers that they supply. I do not, realistically, expect retail CPE routers to support any of these options. For TR-069, BBF can certainly be expected to define mechanisms to manage the routing table. I assume that your SNMP suggestions were intended for the cable company managed routers, and other (e.g. enterprise) SNMP-managed routers. =20 The vast majority of end users will not be able / willing to configure routing tables. This isn't that different from firewall configuration, which terrified the majority of end users, and were the cause for a large percentage of calls to service provider help desks. CPE Routers that succeed in the multi-homed environment, will be the ones that implement automated mechanisms that work.=20 =20 I've noticed from a number of comments that there seems to be a certain disparity between requirements for cable CPE routers, other service provider CPE routers that may have PHY layer WAN modems in them (non-Ethernet WAN), and the retail CPE routers that have an Ethernet WAN and can make no assumption about the nature of the WAN or the service provider supplying that WAN connection. I think that these retail devices are probably the ones that could most benefit from an IETF informational document, and wonder if we shouldn't focus more on recommendations specifically for them. It sounds like the cable industry already has its eRouter document and doesn't really need this. BBF is writing its document. But the retail guys have no other home. =20 >From my perspective, it would be very useful to be able to have some predictable understanding of the capabilities that a retail CPE router can reasonably be expected to have.=20 Barbara =20 From: Wes Beebee (wbeebee) [mailto:wbeebee@cisco.com]=20 Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 4:05 PM To: Stark, Barbara; Alan Kavanagh; jhw@apple.com; v6ops@ops.ietf.org Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant) Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments =20 Manual configuration that may be required to be updated by the Service Provider may be exposed through SNMP in the CPE Router. =20 Therefore, we could provide a way to insert routes into the MSR table through SNMP queries. =20 However, other routes may need to be configured by the end-user, so the MSR table may need to be exposed to the end user as well. =20 - Wes =20 ________________________________ From: Stark, Barbara [mailto:bs7652@att.com]=20 Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 3:56 PM To: Alan Kavanagh; Wes Beebee (wbeebee); jhw@apple.com; v6ops@ops.ietf.org Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant) Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Consider a scenario where a home has 2 routers, each connected to a different access network (maybe one is cable and the other DSL). Each SP, in addition to providing Internet access, also provides access to a walled garden of special services accessible only by their subscribers. This walled garden uses an address space not accessible from the Internet. This walled garden might require the CPE router to set up a separate WAN connection, or it might not. =20 Wouldn't the access networks , in this case, need to tell the CPE routers connected to them that this address space is accessible off this network? And wouldn't the CPE Routers need to tell the hosts in the LAN which of these walled garden address spaces gets routed through each of them, so hosts know where to send traffic bound for a server off one or the other of these private networks? =20 I've seen these things rather often in IPv4, where the CPE Router is statically configured (by the SP) to know what to do. But if the address space needs to change, updating the configuration is clumsy. It seems that the tools available to us with IPv6 could allow us to do better. Barbara =20 From: Alan Kavanagh [mailto:alan.kavanagh@ericsson.com]=20 Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 9:18 PM To: Stark, Barbara; wbeebee@cisco.com; jhw@apple.com; v6ops@ops.ietf.org Cc: shemant@cisco.com Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments =20 Hmm, im a little bit confused here or just missing some of this discussion, but what "routes" are you considering being advertised by the BNG/IP_Edge node and what routes would be then advertised from the WAN to the Home LAN network? =20 Alan K =20 ________________________________ From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stark, Barbara Sent: March 27, 2009 4:44 PM To: wbeebee@cisco.com; jhw@apple.com; v6ops@ops.ietf.org Cc: shemant@cisco.com Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments It's not clear to me why manual configuration is specified as *the* way to configure these routes (again, I see RA (RFC 4191) from the access network to the CPE Rtr WAN interface as a way to configure the routes). I propose that if a CPE Rtr gets such routes from the WAN that it automatically put those same route prefixes in its LAN RAs. In which case it would not be off by default, but on by default (it would automatically send specific route info if it has specific route info to send). Barbara ----- Original Message ----- From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org To: james woodyatt ; IPv6 Operations Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant) Sent: Fri Mar 27 15:40:09 2009 Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments The new text for MSR's is as follows: "8.7 Multi-homed Host Support (MEDIUM) The CPE Router MAY support RFC4191 on its LAN interfaces. Small consumer embedded multi-homed hosts in the home may not have configurable routing tables. The CPE Router can communicate More Specific Routes (MSRs) to these hosts to allow them to choose a preferred router to send traffic to for traffic destined to specific prefixes configured through manual configuration. Advertisement of MSRs through RAs is turned off by default." - Wes -----Original Message----- From: james woodyatt [mailto:jhw@apple.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:17 PM To: IPv6 Operations Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); Wes Beebee (wbeebee) Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments On Mar 25, 2009, at 16:06, james woodyatt wrote: > > Please let me clarify my remarks and narrow my request somewhat, now > that I've had a chance to review more of the CPE Router draft. I am > only interested in such RFC 4191 messages when a valid PIO has been > received on the WAN link with L=3D1. No other cases are interesting. I take it back. It's interesting in the other cases as well. Two CPE routers attached to the same link will exchange their prefixes with MSR advertisements regardless of whether the RAs from the service provider have PIO options in them. As they should. -- james woodyatt member of technical staff, communications engineering ***** The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. GA622 ***** The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. GA625 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9B17C.6A83FC17 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

SPs always have the option of using remote device = configuration protocols (e.g. SNMP, TR-069) to configure CPE routers that they supply. = I do not, realistically, expect retail CPE routers to support any of these = options. For TR-069, BBF can certainly be expected to define mechanisms to manage the = routing table. I assume that your SNMP suggestions were intended for the cable = company managed routers, and other (e.g. enterprise) SNMP-managed = routers.

 

The vast majority of end users will not be able / willing = to configure routing tables. This isn’t that different from firewall configuration, which terrified the majority of end users, and were the = cause for a large percentage of calls to service provider help desks. CPE = Routers that succeed in the multi-homed environment, will be the ones that = implement automated mechanisms that work.

 

I’ve noticed from a number of comments that there = seems to be a certain disparity between requirements for cable CPE routers, other = service provider CPE routers that may have PHY layer WAN modems in them = (non-Ethernet WAN), and the retail CPE routers that have an Ethernet WAN and can make = no assumption about the nature of the WAN or the service provider supplying = that WAN connection. I think that these retail devices are probably the ones = that could most benefit from an IETF informational document, and wonder if we shouldn’t focus more on recommendations specifically for them. It = sounds like the cable industry already has its eRouter document and = doesn’t really need this. BBF is writing its document. But the retail guys have no = other home.

 

From my perspective, it would be very useful to be able = to have some predictable understanding of the capabilities that a retail CPE = router can reasonably be expected to have.

Barbara

 

From:= Wes Beebee (wbeebee) [mailto:wbeebee@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 4:05 PM
To: Stark, Barbara; Alan Kavanagh; jhw@apple.com; = v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 = comments

 

Manual configuration that may be required to be updated by = the Service Provider may be exposed through SNMP in the CPE = Router.

 

Therefore, we could provide a way to insert routes into the = MSR table through SNMP queries.

 

However, other routes may need to be configured by the = end-user, so the MSR table may need to be exposed to the end user as = well.

 

- Wes

 

From: Stark, Barbara = [mailto:bs7652@att.com]
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 3:56 PM
To: Alan Kavanagh; Wes Beebee (wbeebee); jhw@apple.com; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 = comments

Consider a scenario where a home has 2 routers, each = connected to a different access network (maybe one is cable and the other DSL). = Each SP, in addition to providing Internet access, also provides access to a = walled garden of special services accessible only by their subscribers. This = walled garden uses an address space not accessible from the Internet. This = walled garden might require the CPE router to set up a separate WAN connection, = or it might not.

 

Wouldn’t the access networks , in this case, need = to tell the CPE routers connected to them that this address space is accessible = off this network? And wouldn’t the CPE Routers need to tell the hosts = in the LAN which of these walled garden address spaces gets routed through each = of them, so hosts know where to send traffic bound for a server off one or = the other of these private networks?

 

I’ve seen these things rather often in IPv4, where = the CPE Router is statically configured (by the SP) to know what to do. But if = the address space needs to change, updating the configuration is clumsy. It = seems that the tools available to us with IPv6 could allow us to do = better.

Barbara

 

From:= Alan = Kavanagh [mailto:alan.kavanagh@ericsson.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 9:18 PM
To: Stark, Barbara; wbeebee@cisco.com; jhw@apple.com; = v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Cc: shemant@cisco.com
Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 = comments

 

Hmm, im a little bit confused here or just missing some of = this discussion, but what "routes" are you considering being = advertised by the BNG/IP_Edge node and what routes would be then advertised from the = WAN to the Home LAN network?

 

Alan K

 

From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stark, Barbara
Sent: March 27, 2009 4:44 PM
To: wbeebee@cisco.com; jhw@apple.com; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Cc: shemant@cisco.com
Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 = comments

It's = not clear to me why manual configuration is specified as *the* way to configure = these routes (again, I see RA (RFC 4191) from the access network to the CPE = Rtr WAN interface as a way to configure the routes). I propose that if a CPE Rtr = gets such routes from the WAN that it automatically put those same route = prefixes in its LAN RAs. In which case it would not be off by default, but on by = default (it would automatically send specific route info if it has specific = route info to send).
Barbara

----- Original Message -----
From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
To: james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>; IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant) <shemant@cisco.com>
Sent: Fri Mar 27 15:40:09 2009
Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

The new text for MSR's is as follows:

"8.7 Multi-homed Host Support (MEDIUM)
The CPE Router MAY support RFC4191 on its LAN interfaces.  = Small
consumer embedded multi-homed hosts in the home may not have
configurable routing tables.  The CPE Router can communicate = More
Specific Routes (MSRs) to these hosts to allow them to choose a
preferred router to send traffic to for traffic destined to specific
prefixes configured through manual configuration.  Advertisement of = MSRs
through RAs is turned off by default."

- Wes

-----Original Message-----
From: james woodyatt [mailto:jhw@apple.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 7:17 PM
To: IPv6 Operations
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant); Wes Beebee (wbeebee)
Subject: Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

On Mar 25, 2009, at 16:06, james woodyatt wrote:
>
> Please let me clarify my remarks and narrow my request somewhat, = now
> that I've had a chance to review more of the CPE Router = draft.  I am
> only interested in such RFC 4191 messages when a valid PIO has = been
> received on the WAN link with L=3D1.  No other cases are = interesting.

I take it back.  It's interesting in the other cases as well.  = Two CPE
routers attached to the same link will exchange their prefixes with = MSR
advertisements regardless of whether the RAs from the service = provider
have PIO options in them.  As they should.


--
james woodyatt <jhw@apple.com>
member of technical staff, communications engineering

= *****<= o:p>

= The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to = which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or = privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or = taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities = other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in = error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. = GA622<= o:p>

= *****<= o:p>

= The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to = which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or = privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or = taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities = other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in = error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers. = GA625

------_=_NextPart_001_01C9B17C.6A83FC17-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 30 14:16:45 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F13A3A6D8E for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:16:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.322 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.322 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.127, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, MANGLED_WANT=2.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 GbQBVZ4a-07g for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:16:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBB013A6D8B for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:16:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LoOqX-000IVr-Hh for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:16:41 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.72] (helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LoOq7-000IPL-9w for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:16:23 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,448,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="148356547" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Mar 2009 21:15:52 +0000 Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2ULFenY015252; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:15:40 -0700 Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2ULFdN2001283; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:15:40 GMT Received: from xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.174]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:15:40 -0700 Received: from sjc-mbaugher-8711.cisco.com ([10.19.93.34]) by xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:15:39 -0700 Cc: "Stark, Barbara" , "Mark Smith" , "Alan Kavanagh" , "Alastair Johnson" , "Mikael Abrahamsson" , , Message-Id: From: Mark Baugher To: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Subject: Re: AW: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:15:37 -0700 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2009 21:15:40.0113 (UTC) FILETIME=[AD77A410:01C9B17C] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=7367; t=1238447740; x=1239311740; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=mbaugher@cisco.com; z=From:=20Mark=20Baugher=20 |Subject:=20Re=3A=20AW=3A=20draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-0 4=20comments |Sender:=20; bh=+iddjpuipMqKB3bdmoAGKdT59NsHZeXtf1jgruTj0Cs=; b=Tji9tuTM+xUiF6DCosm+SzMNCDmqAENhHp9KWmQy+yXfu4WKNoPT8ygIOD meeaJHtuVIWFHMjezTSD8KdBgt8TBBHVfImRLyzR21+FnXbZhnLcZBdGc9De p4LAoPEXhR; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=mbaugher@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: References: <93123C20-3758-43C8-9201-22CB6D5B6233@apple.com><2bbba3c10903231639t51dac3c3p57e1a4562bd342c4@mail.gmail.com><2bbba3c10903231828g79b0207cnf4b53959e0a21706@mail.gmail.com><30020A2D-4EE5-4F86-A1E5-532990B44D4F@apple.com><9AE362E6-46E1-4400-B1E3-F6B4D5392C06@apple.com><20090326192455.dbcedfab.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org><20090328200557.16d30bd9.ipng@69706e6720323030352d30312d31340a.nosense.org><49CE6126.6080609@sneep.n! et><35815C929B41D2479A224FE098A27227070BEB0C@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> <20090330201805.d06e859f.ipng@69706e6720323030352 d30312d3 1340a.nosens e.org> <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0DA1B731@crexc41p> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) Return-Path: mbaugher@cisco.com X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2009 21:15:39.0459 (UTC) FILETIME=[AD13D930:01C9B17C] On Mar 30, 2009, at 1:00 PM, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote: > Barbara, > > What initial cable standards deployment are you talking about where > clients in the home in cable modems or hosts behind the modems could > talk directly to another cable modem in a neighboring home? For > over 10 What she says is true but it was a long time ago, in my experience. I remember @home sending an advisory to its customers in the 90's advising them to change Windows 95 settings so their neighbors would not be able to view their shared folders. Mark > > years, in docsis networks since docsis 1.0, I don't see such > behavior on > a routed CMTS - this thread is also focused on routed networks because > at the DSL first hop IPv6 router, we have a routed network. Also, > what > you have said below about security or privacy was something that I > sent > already on 03/26. This is what I had said. > > "At this point I would like you all to see this text below that I and > Wes wrote in an expired draft of > draft-wbeebee-on-link-and-off-link-determination-01.txt. > [3. Router Models > > The Redirect Clarifications section clarifies RFC 4861 [ND] host and > router behavior for an aggregation router deployment. > > The Aggregation Router Deployment Model section presents a possible > aggregation router deployment model for IPv6 and discusses its > properties with respect to ND. Aggregation routers can service more > than 100,000 subscribers. Due to scaling considerations, any NS for > global address resolution from any host to any other host should not > reach the aggregation router. > > 3.1. Aggregation Router Deployment Model > > A property of routed aggregation networks is that hosts cannot > directly communicate with each other even if they share the same > prefix. Physical connectivity between the aggregation router and > the > modems prevents hosts behind modems to communicate directly with > each > other. Hosts send their traffic to aggregation router. This design > is motivated by scaling and security considerations. If every host > could receive all traffic from every other host, then the > subscriber's privacy would be violated and the amount of bandwidth > available for each subscriber would be very small. That is why > hosts > communicate between each other through the aggregation router, which > is also the IPv6 first-hop router. > > For scaling reasons, any NS to resolve any address other than that > of > the default router should not reach the aggregation router. > > > +-----+ > | | > |Aggre+----(Rtr CPE)----Host1 > Core----WAN----+gator| > | Rtr | > | +----(Br CPE)----(Cust Rtr)----Host2 > +-----+ > > Figure 1. > > In the figure above, the customer premises equipment (CPE) is > managed > by the ISP and is deployed behind an aggregation router that is an > IPv6 first-hop router and also a DHCPv6 relay agent. IPv6 CPEs are > either IPv6 routers (Rtr CPE) or IPv6 bridges (Br CPE). If the > customer premises uses a bridge CPE, then a router (Cust Rtr) is > needed. All hosts reside behind a router CPE or a customer router. > > No NS to resolve any address other than that of the default router > > > > Singh & Beebee Expires July 4, 2008 > [Page 7] > > > Internet-Draft ND On-link Determination January > 2008 > > > will reach the aggregation router from any device on the customer > side of the aggregator. CPEs do not communicate with each other in > this deployment model since a CPE does not run any applications that > need to communicate with other CPEs. Hosts do communicate with each > other, but every host is off-link to any other host on the > aggregation router.] > > Hemant > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Stark, Barbara > Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 10:08 AM > To: Mark Smith; Alan Kavanagh > Cc: Alastair Johnson; Mikael Abrahamsson; Olaf.Bonness@telekom.de; > v6ops@ops.ietf.org > Subject: RE: AW: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments > > My remembrance of why SPs aren't keen to localize routing is quite > different. > Originally, cable operators had neighbors all on the same Ethernet > network. Neighbors were able to discover each other's computers and > printers (this was before routers were common), and sometimes sniff > each > other's traffic. This was considered a bad thing, from a customer > security and privacy standpoint. Telco providers decided that they did > not want to it this way, and effectively made Ethernet connections > from > customers "point-to-point" to an element in the access network. > > Today, the access network elements are able to detect a lot of malware > traffic (especially DDoS attacks), and disconnect customers that are > infected with malware that presents a security / privacy / > performance-impacting risk to others. Unfortunately, this is not an > infrequent occurrence. If customer traffic were somehow able to bypass > these network elements, it would open up neighbors to attacks by > infected neighbors. That would be a very bad thing. > > Furthermore, in general, there just isn't that much neighbor-to- > neighbor > communication, that would make the savings outweigh the cost of > implementation. The only neighbor my home trades a lot of traffic with > (my kids and their kids, gaming) is on a separate network, since we > use > different service providers. > > Lack of cost justification and security concerns are the reasons why > SPs > are unlikely to localize traffic within the access network, for > general > consumers. > Barbara > > > From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 30 14:38:34 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E223328C0E7 for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:38:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.314 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.314 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.420, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 0fyMUhZojUeB for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:38:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDC063A68BA for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:38:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LoP9l-000Kgb-GS for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:36:33 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.71] (helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LoP9e-000KfR-4t for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:36:30 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,448,1233532800"; d="scan'208,217";a="148568227" Received: from rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com ([64.102.121.158]) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Mar 2009 21:36:25 +0000 Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-1.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2ULaOsW030639; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:36:24 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2ULaKgw026673; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:36:24 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.40]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:36:20 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9B17F.90C5DF7C" Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:36:18 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0DA1B935@crexc41p> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: Acmtn8NXBkiWDxs/Q26RWqIFVoFKpQBc40uQAAJe0UgAbhpoYAAlDCOAAAItY3AAAeBtEAAA6bJA References: <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA08AB7B0B@crexc41p> <35815C929B41D2479A224FE098A27227070BEB0E@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0DA1B8FA@crexc41p> <7582BC68E4994F4ABF0BD4723975C3FA0DA1B935@crexc41p> From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" To: "Stark, Barbara" , "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" , "Alan Kavanagh" , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2009 21:36:20.0977 (UTC) FILETIME=[91147610:01C9B17F] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=9356; t=1238448984; x=1239312984; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim1001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04=20comm ents |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Stark,=20Barbara=22=20,=0A=20=20= 20=20=20=20=20=20=22Wes=20Beebee=20(wbeebee)=22=20,=0A=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=22Alan=20Kavanagh=22=2 0,=20,=0A=20=20=2 0=20=20=20=20=20; bh=oAaM031PzTnDLh/pduIQPTyqyfA+DO8V/6HzDd5Crjo=; b=MfeFuaUudpSXyvfwVT1PuxsGesnSecNZDoFOT8Ngg20v41seU+QyINcYYA B7xihCAMAPf2nk8NEMXIDFbYagniL1ABrQkr1H/wJx98coD4czXQty4c57yC fMUNHKlE5a; Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-1; header.From=shemant@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim1001 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9B17F.90C5DF7C Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Barabra, =20 Could you please go to the archives of the v6ops mailer so that you would understand that even after the cable folks did a eRouter specification, we noticed some glaring problems with that specification and decided to fix them in an IETF draft. So let's not get into=20 "It sounds like the cable industry already has its eRouter document and doesn't really need this". This is a closed book archives in v6ops. You can see all the problems we listed in the eRouter in emails to v6ops. =20 Then, of course, we wanted to specify a standalone home router which is what the document has also focused on. Also, since now the CPE Rtr document is completed for Cable and also getting there as a standalone device for core router, I don't understand the disparity you are talking about. Please let us know specifically what other disparity has caused an incomplete embedded CPE Rtr or a standalone router in the IETF v6ops version of the draft. Also, sorry Wes didn't mean SNMP when he said SNMP - he was still talking in generic terms that use whatever is one's favorite management tool for one's deployment. =20 Lastly, we just don't see a way out for this MSR issue to go beyond manual. May I suggest, before we spend any more time on MSR, can we get all the DSL requirements and then we can focus better on the whole requirements set and suggest a holistic guidance.=20 =20 Hemant =20 =20 From: Stark, Barbara [mailto:bs7652@att.com]=20 Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 5:14 PM To: Wes Beebee (wbeebee); Alan Kavanagh; jhw@apple.com; v6ops@ops.ietf.org Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant) Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments =20 SPs always have the option of using remote device configuration protocols (e.g. SNMP, TR-069) to configure CPE routers that they supply. I do not, realistically, expect retail CPE routers to support any of these options. For TR-069, BBF can certainly be expected to define mechanisms to manage the routing table. I assume that your SNMP suggestions were intended for the cable company managed routers, and other (e.g. enterprise) SNMP-managed routers. =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C9B17F.90C5DF7C Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments

Barabra,

 

Could you please go to the archives of the v6ops mailer = so that you would understand that even after the cable folks did a eRouter specification, we noticed some glaring problems with that specification = and decided to fix them in an IETF draft.  So let’s not get into =

“It sounds like the cable industry already has its eRouter document and doesn’t really need this”.  This is a = closed book archives in v6ops.    You can see all the problems we = listed in the eRouter in emails to v6ops.

 

Then, of course, we wanted to specify a standalone home = router which is what the document has also focused on.   Also, since = now the CPE Rtr document is completed for Cable and also getting there as a = standalone device for core router, I don’t understand the disparity you are = talking about.  Please let us know specifically what other disparity has = caused an incomplete embedded CPE Rtr or a standalone router in the IETF v6ops = version of the draft.   Also, sorry Wes didn’t mean SNMP when he = said SNMP – he was still talking in generic terms that use whatever is = one’s favorite management tool for one’s = deployment.

 

Lastly, we just don’t see a way out for this MSR = issue to go beyond manual.  May I suggest, before we spend any more time on = MSR, can we get all the DSL requirements and then we can focus better on the = whole requirements set and suggest a holistic guidance.

 

Hemant

 

 

From:= Stark, = Barbara [mailto:bs7652@att.com]
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 5:14 PM
To: Wes Beebee (wbeebee); Alan Kavanagh; jhw@apple.com; v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Cc: Hemant Singh (shemant)
Subject: RE: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 = comments

 

SPs always have the option of using remote device = configuration protocols (e.g. SNMP, TR-069) to configure CPE routers that they supply. = I do not, realistically, expect retail CPE routers to support any of these = options. For TR-069, BBF can certainly be expected to define mechanisms to manage = the routing table. I assume that your SNMP suggestions were intended for the = cable company managed routers, and other (e.g. enterprise) SNMP-managed = routers.

 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C9B17F.90C5DF7C-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Mon Mar 30 14:48:46 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4685B28C13C for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:48:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.605 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.605 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.110, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 olhy0yJXJuVQ for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:48:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD47028C15D for ; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:48:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LoPKy-000Lx3-3b for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:48:08 +0000 Received: from [171.71.176.70] (helo=sj-iport-1.cisco.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LoPKt-000LwV-AG for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:48:05 +0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,448,1233532800"; d="scan'208";a="163968158" Received: from sj-dkim-2.cisco.com ([171.71.179.186]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Mar 2009 21:47:58 +0000 Received: from sj-core-5.cisco.com (sj-core-5.cisco.com [171.71.177.238]) by sj-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n2ULlweF011596; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 14:47:58 -0700 Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2ULlwkl029308; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:47:58 GMT Received: from xmb-rtp-20e.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.40]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:47:58 -0400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: AW: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:47:54 -0400 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: AW: draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-04 comments Thread-Index: AcmxfLD6K9zCpFyBRR+ioQgti4ApkwAA9E/g References: From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" To: "Mark Baugher (mbaugher)" Cc: "Stark, Barbara" , "Mark Smith" , "Alan Kavanagh" , "Alastair Johnson" , "Mikael Abrahamsson" , , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2009 21:47:58.0035 (UTC) FILETIME=[308F1230:01C9B181] DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=940; t=1238449678; x=1239313678; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim2002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Hemant=20Singh=20(shemant)=22=20 |Subject:=20RE=3A=20AW=3A=20draft-wbeebee-ipv6-cpe-router-0 4=20comments |Sender:=20; bh=1nnCz7wEvpWsNREyr0UaXped2WQZMJFw4s3HIGBahb8=; b=TTAy0+4539uD4udMv8D/ggQ9ecg6lOnFV4QubnJL62/bQE49Tug4GfnFZl pmfIIFdtZfDmwp7lJTyxaE7jNuaCFvJ3sZ8NzZBotEQGqDPtGZ+/JRUm/JOB 86Fum1Wrg6; Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-2; header.From=shemant@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim2002 verified; ); Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Mark, >What she says is true but it was a long time ago, in my experience. I >remember @home sending an advisory to its customers in the 90's advising >them to change Windows 95 settings so their neighbors would not >be able to view their shared folders. Sure, I don't disbelieve Barbara. All I was saying is that a routed CMTS network will never have this problem and Cisco, for one, has always built only a routed CMTS. Before docsis 1.0, there were bridged CMTSs or even after Docsis 1.0, if a CMTS was only a bridged CMTS, this problem would arise. However, the subject of our IETF thread is a routed IPv6 network at the first hop of the SP which is a CMTS for cable and BNG for DSL. There may be other DSL models where some other device is the first hop and not the BNG, but the point of our discussion is the first hop IPv6 router and any interactions between this SP router and the home CPE Rtr.=20 Hemant From guiwu.he@msa.hinet.net Mon Mar 30 18:48:19 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 101783A68A4; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:48:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -21.006 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-21.006 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL=0.692, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR=2.426, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 9NWWyYFLhfLC; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:48:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ppp-124-121-126-205.revip2.asianet.co.th (ppp-124-121-126-205.revip2.asianet.co.th [124.121.126.205]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6808D3A67F8; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:48:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 160.133.8.236 by smtp.124.121.126.205; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 01:41:06 -0100 Message-ID: <758tx134OINNaaa-archive@lists.ietf.org> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:49:06 -0500 From: "Helen Crowley" To: "Clyde Timmons" Subject: Why get an original watch? Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Why waste your hard-earned money on an expensive watch when you can have the next best thing for a tenth of its price? http://www.deftduty.com/ At Exqu1site Reps we specialize in fine watches imitations, offering our customers the same beauty and craftsmanship that an original carries, matched by a ridiculously low price that is sometimes hard to believe, but very much true! http://www.deftduty.com/ With so many watches that look and work like the real thing, I guarantee you'll have a delicious time finding yours at our store! From quintilian@northstate.net Mon Mar 30 19:15:51 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13DC63A65A6; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 19:15:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.543 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.543 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, GB_ROLEX=5, HELO_EQ_BR=0.955, HOST_EQ_BR=1.295, J_CHICKENPOX_44=0.6, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.96, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, SARE_RECV_IP_200150=0.612, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.083, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 hpnK54rPJtOf; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 19:15:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pcs200150059121.res-com.wayinternet.com.br (pcs200150059121.res-com.wayinternet.com.br [200.150.59.121]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 1B00D3A6B23; Mon, 30 Mar 2009 19:15:39 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 86.112.0.220 by smtp.200.150.59.121; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 01:14:35 -0200 Message-ID: <6450icg75784OZHaaa-archive@lists.ietf.org> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 22:16:35 -0500 From: "Frederick Kirk" To: "Porfirio Crump" Subject: Longines cheaper than you could imagine! Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Have you been dreaming about owning an expensive designer watch? Now you can, just without the high price tag! http://www.bothdeft.com/ At Exqu1site Reps we make it easy to get a Rolex, Cartier, Bvlgari or any brand name that you think of. As long as it is considered a high class watch, you will find it in our one of a kind store! http://www.bothdeft.com/ Only Exqu1site Reps offers you unsurpassed quality and award-winning customer service. So, what are you waiting for? From paiyagar@vt.edu Tue Mar 31 10:39:40 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68B513A6C86; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 10:39:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 2.843 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.843 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_99=3.5, FH_HELO_EQ_D_D_D_D=1.597, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FM_DDDD_TIMES_2=1.999, J_CHICKENPOX_42=0.6, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_51_100=0.5, RAZOR2_CF_RANGE_E8_51_100=1.5, RAZOR2_CHECK=0.5, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL=0.877, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, URIBL_AB_SURBL=10, URIBL_BLACK=20, URIBL_JP_SURBL=10, URIBL_OB_SURBL=10, URIBL_SBL=20, URIBL_SC_SURBL=10, URIBL_WS_SURBL=10, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 b826JuI-gh8c; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 10:39:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from es-217-129-25-171.netvisao.pt (es-217-129-25-171.netvisao.pt [217.129.25.171]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 433053A69F9; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 10:39:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Originating-IP: 182.181.5.18 by smtp.217.129.25.171; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:37:32 -0400 Message-ID: <4860tfq270EKOaaa-archive@lists.ietf.org> Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:40:32 -0500 From: "Hope Zamora" To: "Lucas Aragon" Subject: Watches for him, her and you Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Loving yourself is the first step in loving life. And what better way to do it, than by getting yourself a fine designer watch? http://www.fortspot.com/ At Diam0nd Reps we specialize in fine watches imitations, offering our customers the same beauty and craftsmanship that an original carries, matched by a ridiculously low price that is sometimes hard to believe, but very much true! http://www.fortspot.com/ Only Diam0nd Reps offers you unsurpassed quality and award-winning customer service. So, what are you waiting for? From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Mar 31 13:23:02 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 056653A68F1 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:23:02 -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 ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5glKikk2u2yO for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:23:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 270E03A6B2F for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:23:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LokPR-000HZm-Ih for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:18:09 +0000 Received: from [2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e] (helo=givry.fdupont.fr) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LokPL-000HZL-9d for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:18:06 +0000 Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2VKHsKs074130; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:17:54 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr) Message-Id: <200903312017.n2VKHsKs074130@givry.fdupont.fr> From: Francis Dupont To: Brian E Carpenter cc: Jeff McAdams , IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: [74attendees] The great emphasis on IPv6 - a positive look In-reply-to: Your message of Sun, 29 Mar 2009 10:43:49 +1300. <49CE9A15.9010806@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:17:54 +0200 Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: In your previous mail you wrote: Of course. But as Jeroen said, please read RFC3056. The only more-specifics under 2002::/8 that make any sense whatsoever are /48, and there would *potentially* be about 300,000 of them today, one per announced IPv4 network More specifics under 2002::/8 are very much not allowed. Mr R. Bush gave us a very hard time about that before RFC3056 was approved. => unfortunately if someone does it there is nothing we can do (no Internet police :-). I am afraid one day we regret not have adopted my proposal to reverse the bits of the embedded IPv4 address, a drastic way to enforce no spurious injection of the IPv4 mess into the IPv6 routing table... Regards Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Mar 31 13:38:07 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B65C3A67B0 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:38:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.65 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] 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 d48n+RNt+4CO for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:38:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E8EF3A63CB for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:38:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LokiP-000IUo-7r for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:37:45 +0000 Received: from [2001:41e0:ff00:0:216:3eff:fe00:4] (helo=abaddon.unfix.org) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LokiJ-000IUX-TK for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:37:42 +0000 Received: from [IPv6:2001:41e0:ff42:b00:216:cfff:fe00:e7d0] (spaghetti.ch.unfix.org [IPv6:2001:41e0:ff42:b00:216:cfff:fe00:e7d0]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jeroen) by abaddon.unfix.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 903E5401FFD; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:37:33 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <49D27F0B.9030502@spaghetti.zurich.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:37:31 +0200 From: Jeroen Massar Organization: Unfix User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.21) Gecko/20090302 Lightning/0.9 Thunderbird/2.0.0.21 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Francis Dupont CC: Brian E Carpenter , Jeff McAdams , IPv6 Operations Subject: Re: [74attendees] The great emphasis on IPv6 - a positive look References: <200903312017.n2VKHsKs074130@givry.fdupont.fr> In-Reply-To: <200903312017.n2VKHsKs074130@givry.fdupont.fr> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 OpenPGP: id=333E7C23 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig4A9750B77D2D48E4FDDBF5F7" Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig4A9750B77D2D48E4FDDBF5F7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Francis Dupont wrote: > In your previous mail you wrote: >=20 > Of course. But as Jeroen said, please read RFC3056. The only more-sp= ecifics > under 2002::/8 that make any sense whatsoever are /48, and there wou= ld > *potentially* be about 300,000 of them today, one per announced IPv4= network > More specifics under 2002::/8 are very much not allowed. Mr R. Bush = gave > us a very hard time about that before RFC3056 was approved. > =20 > =3D> unfortunately if someone does it there is nothing we can do (no > Internet police :-). I am afraid one day we regret not have adopted > my proposal to reverse the bits of the embedded IPv4 address, a drastic= > way to enforce no spurious injection of the IPv4 mess into the IPv6 > routing table... That would have been a partial solution indeed that would have voided any person from attempting to do so indeed ;) Fortunately 2002::/16 is very well filtered. And people who do try that one will be shot on site, thus this is a non-issue IMHO. Greets, Jeroen --------------enig4A9750B77D2D48E4FDDBF5F7 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) iD8DBQFJ0n8MKaooUjM+fCMRArDeAJ9pSICpH74dbX9aDGjwos3v9xausACgmORU BDZdDiRUbsdNdygGOIch/RU= =owWk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig4A9750B77D2D48E4FDDBF5F7-- From owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Tue Mar 31 15:54:30 2009 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DB8A28C1B6 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:54:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.547 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.547 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.052, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1] 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 TCBhrgfywaTP for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:54:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FA013A6869 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:54:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1Lomoc-000Pke-TX for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:52:18 +0000 Received: from [208.83.67.147] (helo=z9m9z.htt-consult.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1LomoX-000Pjy-G8 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:52:15 +0000 Received: from z9m9z.htt-consult.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n2VMq7Cv026893 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:52:07 -0400 Received: from nc2400.htt-consult.com (onlo.htt-consult.com [208.83.67.148]) by z9m9z.htt-consult.com (Scalix SMTP Relay 11.3.0.11339) via ESMTP; Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:52:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 18:52:06 -0400 From: Robert Moskowitz To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org Message-ID: <49D29E96.9000009@htt-consult.com> In-Reply-To: References: Subject: Re: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-simple-security should not be a BCP x-scalix-Hops: 1 User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090107) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote: > > I thought before this document moves to a Last Call, it should change=20 > to Informational. None of the information in this document can be=20 > considered to be current practice, let alone be =E2=80=9Cbest practice=E2= =80=9D=20 > because security from this document hasn=E2=80=99t been implemented yet= in an=20 > IPv6 home router by multiple vendors, let alone be considered as=20 > security that is widely deployed and hence be best practice. > Best practice can be what the security community recognizes as the best=20 thing that can be done in the situation, even if it is not the 'current=20 practice', or even the 'common practice'. Sometimes you set the bar and draw the drinkers to it.