[77attendees] Bar BOF: Impact of NAT444 on content providers

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Sun, 14 March 2010 23:26 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: 77attendees@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 77attendees@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8F8B3A683F for <77attendees@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:26:48 -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=[AWL=0.000, 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 kXyQk2O-jUcA for <77attendees@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:26:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pw0-f44.google.com (mail-pw0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65FDD3A6807 for <77attendees@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:26:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by pwj6 with SMTP id 6so1580459pwj.31 for <77attendees@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:26:52 -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:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=BAj9mfmNVpldvIkxtMd7yd35C+L/VGl2NRrVDiTHzwc=; b=DgAt5uYAir1DfpDY0AQ1d+5iTRPJ0kmAjsRz30R1xeP9mMyTkOK4T8blQcxceqCDai 0M30TB0/vhIWSY2z3vfCWbuFucTW0OuQO7djXRMPqwMGHpJJw3c8MysmawU0R01yS85+ YPkJilICg2tFKFyC2N0vySRIu6I0pinjOgla0=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=pmYP0scA+eE7GVpqGCd1FcDfx6SmJpGDo9lRcxvM4A1OnPYQMnC9lTDTg+YJBLLXuM n7e4WtT9HmX/OhxOUM9d/XURevcMOX6HM6+oth+5emgojNsu3Ibu+2khdMtEp4SDuEnA CgCTb/GtDhDC63eWehd72MGChhTpw9ynGtHR8=
Received: by 10.114.252.39 with SMTP id z39mr2176590wah.93.1268609211830; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:26:51 -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 20sm5040564pzk.11.2010.03.14.16.26.50 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 14 Mar 2010 16:26:51 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4B9D70B7.2050001@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:26:47 +1300
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: 77attendees@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [77attendees] Bar BOF: Impact of NAT444 on content providers
X-BeenThere: 77attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <77attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/77attendees>, <mailto:77attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/77attendees>
List-Post: <mailto:77attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:77attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/77attendees>, <mailto:77attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 23:26:49 -0000

Bar BOF: Impact of NAT444 on content providers

Day:  Tuesday March 23
Time: 17:30
Room: TBD

Inspired by some remarks of Lorenzo Colitti (Google) at the recent
APRICOT/APNIC meeting in Kuala Lumpur, we plan to discuss the value
of a short draft aimed *specifically* at content providers, to describe
the impact on them and their customers if many of those customers are
trapped behind double IPv4 NAT (NAT444). Clearly the issues are not
news, but they tend to be described in complex general drafts, or
mixed in with proposed solutions or alternatives to double NAT.

Quoting Lorenzo: "...it would be
good to put together an IETF draft that very concisely lists the problems of
NAT444 from the content provider perspective. For example: worse geolocation
for targeted advertising and streaming content restrictions; higher latency;
IP blocking for abuse/spam causing collateral damage, etc."

(Also see http://www.isoc.org/educpillar/resources/docs/ipv6_200905.pdf)

The bar BOF agenda is to decide whether to proceed with such a draft and
if so, to identify the people who will write it and the target date.

Highly relevant existing documents include:

 draft-ford-shared-addressing-issues-02.txt
 draft-azinger-additional-private-ipv4-space-issues-03.txt

Drafts that touch on the topic in one way or another include:

 draft-nishitani-cgn-04.txt
 draft-shirasaki-nat444-01.txt
 draft-shirasaki-nat444-isp-shared-addr-03.txt
 draft-shirasaki-isp-shared-addr-04.txt
 draft-davies-reusable-ipv4-address-block-00.txt
 draft-boucadair-port-range-02.txt
 draft-ymbk-aplusp-05.txt
 draft-thaler-port-restricted-ip-issues-00.txt

     Brian Carpenter
     (whose only commitment is to make the bar BOF happen)