Eva M. Castro | 2 Apr 18:53 2003
Picon

<draft-shin-v6ops-application-transition-00.txt>

Hi,

Thank you for this document, I think it is very important
to see the transition from the application level.

I have some questions (sorry if they have been
already answered):

1) why applications using only IPv6 (IPv6_V6ONLY
option) are not considered?

2) why the PMTU discovery, which *should* be implemented
in IPv6 nodes, is not mentioned? (it is not a requirement)
I m not sure, but it could be possible to implement a PMTU
discovery service at application level, so applications
could adapt their data flow to get better performance.

Maybe, it would be a good idea to include, in the
appendix section, a complete client/server example to
show: address conversion functions, the way to
know if the application is communicating using
IPv4 or IPv6 protocol, etc

Thank you in advance for your help.

Regards,

eva

--
(Continue reading)

CAITR | 7 Apr 18:03 2003

Internetworking 2003: Call for Papers

Call for Papers
==============

Internetworking 2003, June 22-24, 2003, San Jose, California
http://www.caitr.org/internetworking03/index.htm

REMINDER: Deadline for submissions is April 11, 2003

The Internetworking 2003 Technical Program Committee cordially invites you to submit proposals for original, unpublished presentations focusing on internetworking technologies in the IP, optical, and wireless domains. Summaries not exceeding 250 words can be submitted to submissions <at> caitr.org for review and possible inclusion in the program, no later than April 11, 2003. Topics of interest include, but are not limited to the following:

- Voice over IP (VoIP)
- IP Video Conferencing
- Storage Area Networks (SANs)
- Unicast and Multicast Routing and Convergence
- QoS Routing
- Network Security and Service Integration
- Operational Support Systems
- Virtual Private Networks
- Internetworking Wireless LANs and 3G Wireless Networks
- IP-based Infrastructure for Wireless Networks
- Internetworking IP and Optical Networks
- Internetworking MPLS with Legacy ATM and Frame Relay Networks
- Transition from IPv4 to IPv6 and interworking
- Pervasive Computing
- High Speed Transport Layer Protocols
- Peer to Peer Networking and Grid Computing
- Video Teleconferencing (VTC)
- 802.11 Hotspots

Conference Technical Co-chairs:
- Dr. Maurice Gagnaire, ENST, France
- Daniel Awduche

Technical Program Committee of the Internetworking 2003 Conference:
- Roberto Sabella, Erisson
- Dr. Moshe Zukerman, Univ. of Melbourne
- Nada Golmie, NIST
- Dr. Guy Pujolle, LIP6, France
- Dr. Samir Tohme, ENST, France
- Stefano Trumpy, Italian National Research Council
- Dr. Ibrahim Habib, City Univ. of NY
- Dr. Vishal Sharma, Metanoia
- Dr. Parviz Yegani, Cisco Systems
- Dr. G.S. Kuo
- Dr. Abbas Jamalipour, Univ. of Sydney
- Dr. Hussein Mouftah, Univ. of Ottawa
- James Kempf
- Elizabeth Rodriguez, Co-chair, IETF Working Group on IP Storage
- Dr. Ferit Yegenoglu, Isocore
- Dr. Ali Zadeh, George Mason University
- Tony Przygienda, Co-chair, IETF Working Group on IS-IS for IP Internets
- Ran Canetti, Co-chair, IETF Working Group on Multicast Security

Pekka Savola | 8 Apr 12:27 2003
Picon

Re: <draft-shin-v6ops-application-transition-00.txt>

Hi,

Sorry for the delay in answering, the mail got lost.

The draft has been practically on hold since Atlanta.  I wonder if others
feel this is a work item that's useful for the w.g. or not.  Comments
welcome.

On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Eva M. Castro wrote:
> 1) why applications using only IPv6 (IPv6_V6ONLY
> option) are not considered?

IPV6_V6ONLY is only applicable to a class of server applications, and is
not supported by all implementations.  So, the examples would get slightly
more complicated with it.  But still, I think that would be a useful 
addition to the draft.

> 2) why the PMTU discovery, which *should* be implemented
> in IPv6 nodes, is not mentioned? (it is not a requirement)
> I m not sure, but it could be possible to implement a PMTU
> discovery service at application level, so applications
> could adapt their data flow to get better performance.

I'm not aware of any applications doing this -- so I couldn't really 
recommend that at this point.  In some cases, this could be useful, but 
those seem so specialized I'm not sure that applications is the right 
place to worry about PMTUD, in general.

> Maybe, it would be a good idea to include, in the
> appendix section, a complete client/server example to
> show: address conversion functions, the way to
> know if the application is communicating using
> IPv4 or IPv6 protocol, etc

I'm not sure what you mean, exactly, so you'll probably have to be more 
specific.

Some of those what I think you're referring to can be done with inet_pton,
which might use some example, though.

--

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings

Jeroen Massar | 8 Apr 13:14 2003

RE: <draft-shin-v6ops-application-transition-00.txt>

Pekka Savola wrote:

> Sorry for the delay in answering, the mail got lost.
> 
> The draft has been practically on hold since Atlanta.  I 
> wonder if others feel this is a work item that's useful
> for the w.g. or not.  Comments welcome.

IMHO it's quite useful as I currently point people to
either Itojun's "AF-independent application" (*1) or
Eva's "Porting applications to IPv6" *2 documents
whenever they ask on how to procede in making applications
IPv6 aware. Having a draft which explains this is
another good starting point for persons wanting to know.

<SNIP>

Greets,
 Jeroen

*1 = http://www.kame.net/newsletter/19980604/
*2 = http://jungla.dit.upm.es/~ecastro/IPv6-web/ipv6.html

Janos Mohacsi | 8 Apr 17:18 2003
Picon

RE: <draft-shin-v6ops-application-transition-00.txt>


On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Jeroen Massar wrote:

> Pekka Savola wrote:
>
> > Sorry for the delay in answering, the mail got lost.
> >
> > The draft has been practically on hold since Atlanta.  I
> > wonder if others feel this is a work item that's useful
> > for the w.g. or not.  Comments welcome.
>
> IMHO it's quite useful as I currently point people to
> either Itojun's "AF-independent application" (*1) or
> Eva's "Porting applications to IPv6" *2 documents
> whenever they ask on how to procede in making applications
> IPv6 aware. Having a draft which explains this is
> another good starting point for persons wanting to know.
>
> <SNIP>
>
> Greets,
>  Jeroen
>
> *1 = http://www.kame.net/newsletter/19980604/
> *2 = http://jungla.dit.upm.es/~ecastro/IPv6-web/ipv6.html

There is another two articles, however they are bit dated:

Solaris IPv6 porting guide:
http://wwws.sun.com/software/solaris/ipv6/porting_guide_ipv6.pdf

The old Tru64 unix Network Programmer's Guide:
http://h30097.www3.hp.com/docs/base_doc/DOCUMENTATION/V51B_HTML/ARH9UETE/TITLE.HTM

Janos Mohacsi
Network Engineer, Research Associate
NIIF/HUNGARNET, HUNGARY
Key 00F9AF98: 8645 1312 D249 471B DBAE  21A2 9F52 0D1F 00F9 AF98

Jeroen Massar | 10 Apr 03:17 2003

RE: <draft-shin-v6ops-application-transition-00.txt>

Janos Mohacsi wrote:

> On Tue, 8 Apr 2003, Jeroen Massar wrote:
<SNIP>
> > *1 = http://www.kame.net/newsletter/19980604/
> > *2 = http://jungla.dit.upm.es/~ecastro/IPv6-web/ipv6.html
> 
> There is another two articles, however they are bit dated:
> 
> Solaris IPv6 porting guide:
> http://wwws.sun.com/software/solaris/ipv6/porting_guide_ipv6.pdf
> 
> 
> The old Tru64 unix Network Programmer's Guide:
>
http://h30097.www3.hp.com/docs/base_doc/DOCUMENTATION/V51B_HTML/ARH9UETE
/TITLE.HTM

Added to my collection :)

Greets,
 Jeroen

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ | 10 Apr 04:23 2003
Picon

IPv6 tunnels over NAT boxes, w/o need for new transition protocols

Hi all,

Since a few months already, we have been working in using regular NAT routers to establish IPv6 tunnels, as a
quite simple
transition mechanism, instead of inventing new protocols that may be we don't need in most of the situations.

We have described our conclusions in a short document, that is now publicly available. The idea is quite
simple "proto-41
forwarding".

But I want to go further, and for that I need your help ... and I think this is something that with a few
volunteers (as many as
better), we can do a good and important work. The idea is to identify what routers in addition to those that we
already tested,
support this mechanism.

So, if some of you (as many as possible!), can invest a few minutes to try it, please do it, and report to me
directly (I don't
think we want all these messages in the mailing list !) at jordi.palet@...

Even better if some of the router manufacturers that receive this email can directly tell us how their
different router
models/firmware, behave using this mechanism.

I will compile all the reports received in the next 4-5 weeks (will keep anonymity if requested), and
prepare a short I-D describing
the results, and proposing some ideas for router vendors to support this better in future firmware
releases. May be it can be in
time for next IETF meeting ;-)

In my opinion, if there is an interesting number of routers supporting this, and/or is easy to
implement/enhance in new firmware
versions, we may be in front of an easy transition tool.

In your report, please remember to mention router vendor, model, and firmware version. Any other
interesting details welcome.

The document is accessible at the Euro6IX web site (www.euro6ix.org). You need to click on "public", then
"services", and find "IPv6
Tunnels over NAT".

By the way, several interesting documents are available in www.euro6ix.org (you need to register to
access them).

Regards,
Jordi

PS: Sorry for x-posting, if you are in several mail exploders

*****************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
12-14 May 2003 - Register at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

Jasminko.W.Mulahusic | 15 Apr 12:14 2003
Picon
Picon

draft-ietf-v6ops-3gpp-cases-03.txt

for what it is worth, i have read the draft
draft-ietf-v6ops-3gpp-cases-03.txt and sent some minor
comments/questions in a separate mail to jonne [to which he replied].

i think the draft is ok.

jasminko

Ronald van der Pol | 18 Apr 18:45 2003

why do we have two v6ops home pages?

I suppose this has historic reasons. But I think it is confusing
for newcomers. People who want to know more about v6ops will
probably start at http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/v6ops-charter.html.
That page does not have a pointer to http://www.6bone.net/v6ops/index.htm,
which is where e.g. the minutes of the meetings are kept.

	rvdp

Satomi Okazaki | 19 Apr 00:45 2003

security in transition mechanisms

My colleagues and I are starting to look at security issues in v4 to v6 
transition mechanisms.  I am wondering which mechanisms people are 
considering implementing.  I imagine that some have less/more support 
than others. Thanks in advance.

Regards,

Satomi Okazaki

--

-- 
Satomi Okazaki, Ph.D.
NTT Multimedia Communications Laboratories, Inc.
250 Cambridge Avenue, Suite 300
Palo Alto, California 94306
USA


Gmane