Re: [ncrg] Relevance for IPv4 address sharing mechanisms

"Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <mbehring@cisco.com> Tue, 06 November 2012 21:54 UTC

Return-Path: <mbehring@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ncrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ncrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4023621F8B81 for <ncrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 13:54:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KzLf4k3irRtm for <ncrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 13:54:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A530D21F8B7E for <ncrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 13:54:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1345; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1352238867; x=1353448467; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=+Lwp2k9A4xkZsTJBK7ZWdX3sHzWXht6GCeEhZTK3QAc=; b=gzmekKjOf707PT9mITdxU4uXWjddB1vX10EbpyqVjDDSBsqUjD/6PBWB LuuFjw1Toorr7t8MkP5s+thPUXaKwLdVJlwvcrqGVCBzffa0R9Cq1Qvee t89BzqpcjLZYwc4LA52QWKQRdJcTqFEf0Y/Qv6O7kzfrCHCYguCI0B4bC o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAOeFmVCtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABEw0aBCIIeAQEBAwEBAQEPAVsQBwQCAQgRBAEBCx0HJwsUCQgCBAESCBqHYgYLm06PYpAsBIwDhXRhA6RUgWuCb4IZ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,724,1344211200"; d="scan'208";a="139476891"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Nov 2012 21:54:27 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com [173.37.183.77]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qA6LsRtr001120 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 6 Nov 2012 21:54:27 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.77]) by xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com ([173.37.183.77]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 15:54:26 -0600
From: "Michael Behringer (mbehring)" <mbehring@cisco.com>
To: =?iso-8859-2?Q?Nejc_=A9koberne?= <nejc@skoberne.net>, "ncrg@irtf.org" <ncrg@irtf.org>
Thread-Topic: [ncrg] Relevance for IPv4 address sharing mechanisms
Thread-Index: AQHNu3FoWscJtKWca0eOcY8Rhq0OpJfdWsBA
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 21:54:26 +0000
Message-ID: <3AA7118E69D7CD4BA3ECD5716BAF28DF0F58F810@xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com>
References: <5097E725.808@skoberne.net>
In-Reply-To: <5097E725.808@skoberne.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.55.81.113]
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19344.002
x-tm-as-result: No--37.583900-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [ncrg] Relevance for IPv4 address sharing mechanisms
X-BeenThere: ncrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Complexity Research Group <ncrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/ncrg>, <mailto:ncrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/ncrg>
List-Post: <mailto:ncrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ncrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/ncrg>, <mailto:ncrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 21:54:28 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ncrg-bounces@irtf.org [mailto:ncrg-bounces@irtf.org] On Behalf Of
> Nejc Škoberne
> Sent: 05 November 2012 11:20
> To: ncrg@irtf.org
> Subject: [ncrg] Relevance for IPv4 address sharing mechanisms
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I work on research on IPv4 address sharing mechanisms, which are in other
> WGs, so my question is: will this framework also be useful for evaluating
> complexity of these mechanisms? I.e. Stateful NAT64 (RFC 6146), DS-Lite
> (RFC 6333), current MAP and 4rd Internet Drafts and so on. Maybe it's a
> stupid question, but at the meeting today, routing protocols were mostly
> discussed.

Nejc, 

The NCRG should *specifically* contribute to IETF activities, and try to analyse the complexity in protocols. It seems to me that protocol complexity is significantly simpler to figure out than the complexity of a real network, with all its dependencies on hardware, human operators, etc. I'm thinking here of the complexity of the specs only, ignoring the implementation at this point. 

So please share your thoughts here on how we could analyse the complexity of those protocols!

Michael
 
> Thanks,
> Nejc
> _______________________________________________
> ncrg mailing list
> ncrg@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/ncrg