Subject: IEEE 802.16 access technology + IPv6 deployment

From: Myung-Ki Shin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 14:31:28 +0900

Hi, Folks, 

I think v6ops is also interested in the draft -
Scenarios and Considerations of IPv6 in IEEE 802.16 Networks 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-shin-ipv6-ieee802.16-01.txt 

(The draft will be discussed in 16ng BoF (Tue.) at Vancouver.)

IEEE 802.16 + IPv6 will be deployed as one of ISP 
Broadband Access Networks such as Cable/HFC, BB Ethernet, 
xDSL, WLAN, etc.

So, I think IEEE 802.16 access technology should be also 
added for completeness into 
<draft-ietf-v6ops-bb-deployment-scenarios-04.txt>

Any thoughts ? 

Thanks, 
Myung-Ki,

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 05:01:58 +0200 (EET)

Hi,

draft-ietf-v6ops-bb-deployment-scenarios-04.txt has been under 
development for a while and has already been Last Called. It is too 
late to add new material like this to it.  I'd suggest that you write 
a separate document (maybe re-using the document layout) on 802.16 and 
we'll push that forward separately.

However, maybe a better venue for that document would be the 
16NG BOF as that's the place for those w/ expertise and interest in 
802.16.

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

---

From: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 19:10:57 -0800

This is actually something we probably want to discuss breifly  
tomorrow. I'm told that DOCSIS has delayed its comments, and that a  
date has not been given. One way to look at that is "this document  
should wait for the DOCSIS comments and then be updated", which is  
where we came out in August; the other is that it is sufficient for  
DOCSIS 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0 services. If the latter is true, then we may  
simply want to add a note saying as much, publish this, and plan on a  
revision when DOCSIS emits its update. I have not heard that the  
latter is false.

On Nov 6, 2005, at 7:01 PM, Pekka Savola wrote:

> late to add new material like this to it.  I'd suggest that you  
> write a separate document (maybe re-using the document layout) on  
> 802.16 and we'll push that forward separately.

--------------------------------------------------------------
"Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already  
tomorrow in Australia." (Charles Schulz )

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 05:21:40 +0200 (EET)

On Sun, 6 Nov 2005, Fred Baker wrote:
> This is actually something we probably want to discuss breifly tomorrow. I'm 
> told that DOCSIS has delayed its comments, and that a date has not been 
> given. One way to look at that is "this document should wait for the DOCSIS 
> comments and then be updated", which is where we came out in August; the 
> other is that it is sufficient for DOCSIS 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0 services. If the 
> latter is true, then we may simply want to add a note saying as much, publish 
> this, and plan on a revision when DOCSIS emits its update. I have not heard 
> that the latter is false.

Back in August 2005, there was an offlist agreement (with chairs, 
authors, Alain, and Tony) as follows:

"1) Let them (Alain & Tony) to provide all the required inputs maximum 
until middle of October, so they have actually more time that they 
asked for.

2) With inputs or without them, the document will be ready from our 
side, and they will not object if they didn't provided the inputs (for 
example new architecture still not agreed, etc.). So by the cut-off 
date before the next IETF, will be moved forward to the next step.

3) If no inputs are available or a more complete thing is needed for 
DOCSIS 3.0, then a new document can be made specifically for that 
architecture."

It is no surprise that DOCSIS 3.0 might be delayed; that was expected 
already before the last IETF.  Unless there is opposition to this from 
other members of the WG, we should IMHO move forward.  We can't wait 
forever for input to come especially because we already agreed not to 
wait any longer.  The document can easily be revised later on, or 
DOCSIS 3.0 can be described separately.

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 20:20:18 -0800

One more issue as part of this agreement was to further clarify in the
document that it was preferring native IPv6 support. So the cable part of
this document is only relevant to the case that you can't upgrade your cable
equipment to support IPv6 natively.

This has been done in the latest review, and this means that any new release
of DOCSIS or any other way to offer native IPv6 support doesn't require any
change to the current document status.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
> Responder a: <[email-masked]>
> Fecha: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 05:21:40 +0200 (EET)
> Para: Fred Baker <[email-masked]>
> CC: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
> Asunto: status of bb-deployment [Re: IEEE 802.16 access technology + IPv6
> deployment
> 

************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Barcelona 2005 Global IPv6 Summit
Information available at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.