[ncrg] Relevance for IPv4 address sharing mechanisms

Nejc Škoberne <nejc@skoberne.net> Mon, 05 November 2012 16:19 UTC

Return-Path: <nejc@skoberne.net>
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 4CA8321F897E for <ncrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 08:19:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 5y2wYYl7QZKW for <ncrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 08:19:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-f54.google.com (mail-pa0-f54.google.com [209.85.220.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3FE821F88B8 for <ncrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 08:19:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pa0-f54.google.com with SMTP id bi1so4246753pad.13 for <ncrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 05 Nov 2012 08:19:52 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=skoberne.net; s=google; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=VnaMYw1fLoht09erGW8KrWHstbrnwSbB9zhA8Q2sINA=; b=nyMJ6tF9JsXU3Wymh4BAu8fHbfV6RmwL5N+q0+8GvoJ+I8t96VHHVtDj+ak26TAEnb bbsIs4QxMj+c/t3bVq+Wu0Frub0iKato4huMk3kYJN1Unc3siNlHSbHaUxwyEfN9KxTU MRnKqWYq/OzNk2CZE+Le+2VSQQuxGHHKOGl7Q=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=VnaMYw1fLoht09erGW8KrWHstbrnwSbB9zhA8Q2sINA=; b=WQ5A0q7IT/cLBm1OgyxL2de76OIgum8QNsLRhVjpfqrg36oySG20Xm1FNYdSHS9hpH koWCyg+Mg+MF76lRyrOHHvobXD8/TEUkocQMZsrgraxrbszpVmUqKeJRh18xoAm2u3WP 5aMPsher8oeaqsKkkW3kHYKDjwAnFOrHsouybxDKhCKD8Yxt0i7HNrl8avu/SfDDWOeT O7ELo0P9qzERY2tMPeHFN5m0YIC1GfCdtK6TaGoaEdYiUaPxxIiwsO0FUBs7oKaUBqZO bHB7d66j1JtETCXqCNrrk8ktwD+jtpnsGnKtZZhGs4jgnA2QvBiu1qPN0cQxjztOZPo3 Yhpw==
Received: by 10.68.219.106 with SMTP id pn10mr31846594pbc.41.1352132392651; Mon, 05 Nov 2012 08:19:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:df8:0:16:1d72:2a0:19ec:cd77? ([2001:df8:0:16:1d72:2a0:19ec:cd77]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k4sm10861849pax.7.2012.11.05.08.19.50 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 05 Nov 2012 08:19:51 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <5097E725.808@skoberne.net>
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 11:19:49 -0500
From: =?windows-1252?Q?Nejc_=8Akoberne?= <nejc@skoberne.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ncrg@irtf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlPua/P3FTL3Tp1IMaW1I5IWJs4s3oJjriaYarpaLbX3wMuFh3fNDGdY7Fv47pLzA2ykTHX
Subject: [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: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 16:19:55 -0000

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.

Thanks,
Nejc