+1
Regards,
Behcet
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Sheng Jiang wrote:
> Support the adoption. This document has targeted a real issue and proposed
> a workable solution.
>
> Regards,
>
> Sheng
>
> >-Original Message-
> >From: int-area-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.or
Hi Joe,
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
> Brian,
>
> Although I don't disagree with the points below, it's useful to consider
> that INT is already working in this area, so I don't see either (a) or (c)
> as being relevant unless you expect to shift current INT docs to other W
On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 12:57 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
> On 3/7/2014 1:30 AM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
>
>> Hi Joe,
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Joe Touch > <mailto:to...@isi.edu>> wrote:
>>
>> Brian,
>>
Hi Brian,
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> a) Since this is fixing some of the damage done by NAT, it's
> really unfinished business for BEHAVE, which if iirc was a
> Transport Area WG. Just saying...
>
> b) The word "privacy" doesn't a
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 7:47 AM, wrote:
> I support adoption of this draft and would like to take the opportunity of
> this message to remind the group about ETSI's interest for Use case#9, as
> expressed in a Liaison Statement sent last year.
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1292/
>
+1
Hi Ted,
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Jul 23, 2014, at 8:11 AM, Eggert, Lars wrote:
>> I wanted to repeat my comment from the meeting. Given that at least in my
>> read of RFC6967, there exist to sane mechanism to even exchange host IDs
>> across the network, I don't
Hi Tom,
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Tom Herbert wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Templin, Fred L
> wrote:
>> Hi Lucy,
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Lucy yong [mailto:lucy.y...@huawei.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 7:48 AM
>>> To: Templin, Fred L; stbry...@c
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Behcet Sarikaya
> wrote:
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:00 AM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 7:50 AM, Templin, Fred L
>>> wrote:
>
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 1:42 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Behcet Sarikaya
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Tom Herbert wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Behcet Sarikaya
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi Tom,
>&
Hi Xiaohu, Joe,
On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 10:19 PM, Xuxiaohu wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> I'm wondering whether your proposal as below is also applicable to other
> UDP-based encapsulation approaches which have not yet considered doing
> fragmentation on the tunnel layer, such as GENEVE, VXLAN-GPE, GRE-
As one of your chairs (now ex- already), I welcome you in the
technical area and maybe we can write drafts jointly :-)
Regards,
Behcet
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Brian E Carpenter
wrote:
> On 03/07/2015 03:24, Warren Kumari wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 2, 2015, Ralph Droms wrote:
>>
>>> Br
Hi all,
Here is the link to Dorothy's ppt file from 802.11 document server:
https://mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/15/11-15-1261-02-0arc-mulicast-performance-optimization-features-overview-for-ietf-nov-2015.ppt
Regards,
Behcet
___
Int-area mailing list
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Tom Herbert wrote:
> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 8:33 PM, Joel M. Halpern
> wrote:
> > If we want the documents to be informational, then it should be about a
> > context where we understand how to build the surrounding infrastructure.
> > For example, if it were do
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Joel M. Halpern
wrote:
> I do not think classic Internet tunnels (e.g. IP in IP or GRE) are a good
> comparison for ILA. The ILA mapping requires dynamic knowledge about the
> remote end. (One of the things that is important about ILA is its ability
> to hide dy
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>
> > On Sep 28, 2017, at 7:56 PM, Khaled Omar
> wrote:
> >
> > I still didn't recognize what is the problem of version number 10
>
> That number is assigned by IANA if - and only when - a protocol proposal
> qualifies for that assignment.
>
>
LX is 60 in Roman numbers, so it is 10 times 6 :)
Behcer
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 11:34 AM, Khaled Omar
wrote:
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Khaled Omar
> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 6:34 PM
> To: 'Templin, Fred L'
> Subject: RE: [Int-area] IP-not-v10
>
> What IPvLX means ?
>
> We
On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 10:22 PM, 徐小虎(义先)
wrote:
> It doesn't matter whether or not it's already there. IMHO, given the
> popularity of different overlay technologies such as VXLAN and MPLS-in-UDP
> in practice, GUE initially and mainly targeted as a DC overlay approach has
> little change to be
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 6:21 PM, Luca Muscariello <
luca.muscarie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I wonder whether this conversation should happen in the intarea wg mailing
> list
> as the main draft was posted there in the first place. I don't know if
> cross posting is welcome
> but I take the risk.
>
>
other, rather exploiting in
> the combination the advantages of both ones.
>
>
>
I don't understand.
SRv6 is tunneling technique while hICN is talking about anchoress mobility.
Did I get something wrong?
Behcet
> Giovanna
> ------
> *From:* Int-area
Luca,
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 3:46 AM, Luca Muscariello <
luca.muscarie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> These solutions are not all isomorphic and comparison requires some
> careful taxonomy first.
> The -01 version of the draft Kalyani is taking care of will include that
> and will definitely help to
>
On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 7:02 PM John Gilmore wrote:
> Protocol 114 was unassigned in RFC 1700 in Oct 1994, which was the last
> RFC tabulating protocol assignments. In January 2002, RFCs ceased being
> published for protocol number assignments, according to RFC 3232.
> Sometime before Feb 1999,
+1
I think it is a good draft, out of very hard work, a lot of sweat.
Behcet
On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 10:10 AM Joseph Touch wrote:
> -1
>
> Although it’s understandable to describe “what operators do”, the IETF
> isn’t a news service. We typically summarize these behaviors to take a
> position o
Hi Eric,
I am sure you know, all independent Submission documents can only be
published as Informational.
I did not check what status the authors wish to have but it is good to
mention here.
Regards,
Behcet
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 7:55 AM Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
> Vladimir, Dragos,
>
>
>
g to do so.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Adrian
>
>
>
> *From:* Int-area *On Behalf Of *Eric Vyncke
> (evyncke)
> *Sent:* 15 January 2021 15:52
> *To:* sarik...@ieee.org
> *Cc:* int-area@ietf.org; dragos.nicule...@cs.pub.ro
> *Subject:* Re: [Int-area] Suggestion to
Hi Stewart,
Thanks for your analysis.
I haven't read the drafts you mentioned but I thought that the address size
issue was long resolved with the IPv6:
basically it matters on the wireless medium and this is solved by the
so-called ROHC RObust Header Compression,
which is adapted by 5G and it wo
On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 2:08 PM Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Toerless,
> On 02-Mar-21 04:33, Toerless Eckert wrote:
> > It is somewhat ironic to see how it was IP and IPv6 that where the
> protocols that where
> > successfully enhanced with additional adress semantic
To Intarea chairs,
I was glancing through the mails on this draft and related ones.
It seems like the issue discussed is or very similar to those already being
discussed in IRTF.
So spend WG time on this?
Behcet
On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 4:23 AM Dirk Trossen
wrote:
> Hi Chathura,
>
> Please see
Hi Lin,
Thanks for this interesting work.
I don't understand why the ID link is so complicated?
Why not just submit it on the datatracker?
Behcet
On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 7:41 PM Lin Han wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This draft analyzed the problems and requirements for the satellite
> network when it is int
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 12:18 PM Lin Han wrote:
> Hi, Hesham
>
>
>
> Thanks for the info.
>
> The reference from prof. Mark has been given in the draft as
> [UCL-Mark-Handley] (sec. 7.2.2), the paper has demonstrated that satellite
> relay can achieve shorter latency than ground fiber network thro
Hi Folks,
Thanks Christian for explaining how GSO/GRO are used by Quic
implementations. So the use is not mandated in Quic RFCs but rather used in
implementations.
I found this presentation by Intel:
https://www.dpdk.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/35/2018/06/GRO-GSO-Libraries-Bring-Significant-Perf
+1
Behcet
On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 3:32 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> +1
>
>
> El 15/3/22, 21:05, "Int-area en nombre de Brian E Carpenter" <
> int-area-boun...@ietf.org en nombre de brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>
> escribió:
>
> Hi,
>
> > Please let us know if you have any questions a
On Wed, Mar 23, 2022 at 10:05 AM wrote:
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> The SAVNET BoF (source address validation for intra-domain and
> inter-domain networks) will be held on Thursday. I am writing this letter
> to invite colleagues from the INT-AREA WG who have interests on this topic
> to join the BoF. Th
On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 5:17 AM tom petch wrote:
> From: Robert Moskowitz
> Sent: 05 April 2023 18:58
>
> The origin draft only was discussing SCHC as an IP Protocol Number.
>
> At IETF115, the attendees agreed that the draft needs to be expanded to
> also SCHC as an Ethertype and as a UDP Port N
On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 2:23 PM Warren Kumari wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 12:08 PM, Herbie Robinson <
> herbie.robin...@stratus.com> wrote:
>
>> I think the ICMP problem needs to be addressed. Perhaps with an IPv4
>> option to embed the identity of the router (IPv6 address or some o
I suggest continuing like before and using Int-Area as a means of discussing
issues of common interest in the Internet area. And occasionally advance some
documents.
Regards,
Behcet
- Original Message
> From: Brian E Carpenter
> To: Internet Area
> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2
Absolutely. I think that Int-area as a forum is to me more meaningful than
IntArea WG is where certain documents will be advanced.
Maybe other areas like TSV have specific reasons to create a WG like TSVWG
which has lots of documents, I don't see the same in Int-Area.
I think that people shoul
+1
Regards,
Behcet
- Original Message
> From: Suresh Krishnan
> To: Jari Arkko
> Cc: Internet Area
> Sent: Mon, October 12, 2009 10:28:19 AM
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] intarea charter
>
> Hi Jari,
>
> On 09-10-12 11:18 AM, Jari Arkko wrote:
> > The second possibility is to create
Hi Raj,
I agree that basic MIP6 should not have RO feature, just like PMIPv6.
I think in basic MIP6 we should define an IP entity close to MN, like AR.
Again like PMIPv6.
Regards,
Behcet
- Original Message
> From: "basavaraj.pa...@nokia.com"
> To: wassim.had...@ericsson.com; m...@
> Hi, Remi,
>
> On 10/01/2011 05:30 a.m., Rémi Després wrote:
>
> >> End-to-end transparency in the sense that every node will be
> >> reachable from every node?
> >
> > The e2e transparency that IPv4 had lost, and IPv6 restores, is
> > ADDRESS transparency: source and destination addresse
+1
Behcet
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
> From my perspective, the draft addresses the right set of issues. I
> personally am concerned about asking host vendors (or for that matter NAT
> and proxy vendors) to do extra work to keep IPv4 running; I'm personally
> very happy t
Hi Suresh,
I would like to ask for a 20-minute slot to present
Fixed Mobile Convergence (FMC) Problem Statement draft.
The draft has not yet been submitted but it will be sometime next week.
Regards,
Behcet
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Suresh Krishnan
wrote:
> Hi all,
> The intarea WG wil
n of I-D, draft-xue-intarea-fmc-ps-00.txt has been
successfully submitted by Behcet Sarikaya and posted to the IETF
repository.
Filename: draft-xue-intarea-fmc-ps
Revision: 00
Title: Problem Statement for Fixed Mobile Convergence
Creation date: 2012-03-02
W
Hi all,
Our previous mail on March 6 announcing FMC Bar Bof had by mistake the
date as March 28.
Tuesday March 27 at 19:30 or 7:30pm is the correct one.
We are going to send another mail once this is confirmed by IETF.
Sorry for the confusion and thanks to Wassim, Med, Sophie for waking us up :
Side meeting on Fixed Mobile Convergence will take place on Thursday
March 29, 2012
from 18:10 to 20:00 at room 212-213.
The agenda and materials are posted at:
http://www-etud.iro.umontreal.ca/~sarikaya/fmc/fmc.html
Come and join us in this meeting.
Behcet & Dirk
___
IETF could not find us an appropriate room so as a result we will hold
FMC meeting at the original time.
Details are below:
Tuesday March 27 at 19:30 or 7:30
Meet at Hotel Concorde Lobby
Take a look at the materials at the link given below.
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Behcet Sarikaya
A new list has been created for fixed mobile convergence (FMC)
discussions, f...@ietf.org.
If interested, please subscribe the list using this link:
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/fmc
Regards,
Behcet & Dirk
___
Int-area mailing list
Int-area@ie
Support.
Regards,
Behcet
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Suresh Krishnan
wrote:
> Hi all,
> The WGLC on this draft ended with no comments at all. In this context,
> we cannot assume that silence equates to consent. In order for this
> draft to progress, we need people to read the draft and p
Hi Med,
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 2:10 AM, wrote:
> Dear Lars,
>
> Please see inline.
>
> Cheers,
> Med
>
>>-Message d'origine-
>>De : int-area-boun...@ietf.org
>>[mailto:int-area-boun...@ietf.org] De la part de Eggert, Lars
>>Envoyé : vendredi 6 juillet 2012 09:40
>>À : Alissa Cooper
>>C
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 3:25 AM, wrote:
> Dear Suresh, all,
>
> After reading received comments, the major point we need to discuss is
> whether the WG wants to remove Section 3.3 or maintain it. I'm waiting for a
> feedback from the WG for the direction to take. I will implement any change
>
Hi Suresh,
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Suresh Krishnan <
suresh.krish...@ericsson.com> wrote:
> Hi Brian,
> Thanks for the review. I wanted to clarify three points that you
> raised and I will ask the authors take care of the rest.
>
> On 02/11/2013 04:11 PM, Brian Haberman wrote:
> > 7. I
Hi Suresh,
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Suresh Krishnan <
suresh.krish...@ericsson.com> wrote:
> Hi Behcet,
>
> On 02/12/2013 05:57 PM, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> > Hi Suresh,
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Suresh Krishnan
> > mailto
Hi Med,
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:43 AM, wrote:
> **
> Hi Behcet,
>
> I have two comments:
>
> * Host identification issue is valid for any address sharing mechanism.
>
I am not sure on A+P?
A+P requires point-to-point link, right?
> This is why the introduction mentions already the followin
> Cheers,
> Med
>
> ------
> *De :* Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:sarikaya2...@gmail.com]
> *Envoyé :* mercredi 13 février 2013 18:01
> *À :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN
> *Cc :* Suresh Krishnan; Brian Haberman;
> draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analy...@tools.ietf.org; int-area@ietf.org
t; Cheers,
> Med
>
> --
> *De :* Behcet Sarikaya [mailto:sarikaya2...@gmail.com]
> *Envoyé :* mercredi 13 février 2013 20:09
>
> *À :* BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN
> *Cc :* Suresh Krishnan; Brian Haberman;
> draft-ietf-intarea-nat-reveal-analy...@too
54 matches
Mail list logo
