softwire - Friday, 30 March 2012

softwire

softwire@jabber.ietf.org

Friday, 30 March 2012< ^ >

TJ has set the subject to: Softwire

Room Configuration

GMT+0
[00:03:29] tomek leaves the room
[06:30:39] tomek joins the room
[06:32:56] Maoke Chen joins the room
[06:42:57] tomek leaves the room
[06:54:06] Maoke Chen leaves the room
[06:54:13] Maoke Chen joins the room
[06:55:01] tskj joins the room
[06:55:15] Jiang Dong joins the room
[06:56:23] jpc joins the room
[07:02:05] sarikaya2012 joins the room
[07:03:16] arifumi joins the room
[07:03:41] <Maoke Chen> in jabber room.
[07:04:04] zcao joins the room
[07:04:19] Bruno STEVANT joins the room
[07:04:42] <Maoke Chen> anyone in the venue taking the message from jabber or not?
[07:05:55] rdroms joins the room
[07:08:08] kawashimam joins the room
[07:08:38] dudisaki joins the room
[07:10:12] tomek joins the room
[07:10:59] <Maoke Chen> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-softwire-10.pptx
[07:24:08] <Maoke Chen> now it is page 2 of http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/slides/slides-83-softwire-11.ppt
[07:33:18] <Maoke Chen> mic: comments to Remi's question：for ISP, we need also the simplicity of encapsulation and the virtual link architectural building block.
[07:44:40] <Maoke Chen> quick response to "ISP don't need to choose..."
[07:45:11] <Maoke Chen> the reason is not E or T themselves, but about the architecture they choose.
[07:46:14] satoru.matsushima joins the room
[07:46:28] satoru.matsushima leaves the room
[07:47:55] <Maoke Chen> difference: RFC6145 doesn't change the semantics of fragment header.
[07:49:56] <Maoke Chen> actually the practical case DF=MF=1 reported in IMC'07 paper cannot be survived even in 4rd-u case, because they are wrongly made packets.
[07:50:48] <Maoke Chen> TTL solution is not convincing at all.
[07:52:39] <Maoke Chen> as a person who looked at it deeply, conclusion 1 is not convincing me because uncertainty is still there.
[07:55:34] <Maoke Chen> e.g. recent solution of TTL preserver in the mail list conflicts to the -05 version's ICMPv6-to-ICMPv4 translation.
[07:58:52] <Bruno STEVANT> ahah IPv6.1 :)
[07:59:24] <Maoke Chen> sure. 4rd-u is changing the semantics as it likes.
[08:03:56] Jiang Dong leaves the room
[08:08:06] Jiang Dong joins the room
[08:08:13] <Maoke Chen> operators are knowing encapsulations and translations and the choice is natural.
[08:08:57] <Maoke Chen> but operators is hard to make a choice between 4rd-u and the well known transition building block.
[08:19:44] danwing joins the room
[08:19:46] <Maoke Chen> what 4rd-u introduces: 1. fragment header semantics changes; 2. first bit of HopLimit semantics change; 3. IPv6 containing ICMPv4 messages directly which never happens.
[08:36:11] <Maoke Chen> Maoke Chen from jabber: there is flaw.
[08:36:56] <Maoke Chen> Maoke Chen from jabber: architectural flaw and technical flaws in the 4rd-u.
[08:38:06] arifumi leaves the room
[08:38:08] arifumi joins the room
[08:44:43] danwing leaves the room
[08:54:07] tskj leaves the room
[08:58:19] zcao leaves the room
[08:58:24] kawashimam leaves the room
[08:58:36] Maoke Chen leaves the room
[08:58:39] dudisaki leaves the room
[09:04:19] tomek leaves the room
[09:06:07] rdroms leaves the room
[09:06:07] arifumi leaves the room
[09:09:42] sarikaya2012 leaves the room
[09:11:22] tomek joins the room
[09:11:38] jpc leaves the room
[09:14:57] Jiang Dong leaves the room
[09:18:07] arifumi joins the room
[09:23:02] tomek leaves the room
[09:23:52] arifumi leaves the room
[09:36:42] rdroms joins the room
[09:42:12] rdroms leaves the room
[09:44:02] Bruno STEVANT leaves the room
[09:54:56] sarikaya2012 joins the room
[09:58:25] sarikaya2012 leaves the room
[11:40:02] rdroms joins the room
[11:43:00] rdroms leaves the room
[12:00:21] rdroms joins the room
[12:01:02] rdroms leaves the room