Re: [ncrg] Relevance for IPv4 address sharing mechanisms

Rana Sircar <sircar.rana@gmail.com> Tue, 06 November 2012 16:02 UTC

Return-Path: <sircar.rana@gmail.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 C630821F8A14 for <ncrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 08:02:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.932
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.932 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666]
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 zawiULg4jrU3 for <ncrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 08:02:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pb0-f54.google.com (mail-pb0-f54.google.com [209.85.160.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45B3621F89FA for <ncrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 08:02:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pb0-f54.google.com with SMTP id rp8so536147pbb.13 for <ncrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 06 Nov 2012 08:02:11 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=+ByznappCFFju18/aIDEJ1jIYGAPtku22V+xMfEdPjA=; b=H24ZSWMFu6Ql5AN6yYWzt6Z1294QciNm4HMjcToHGm7YRVH6XynKxqaNy2Qbb1nrZL 9EDFKYQ04nPG2+3ET4qMFTGtNjj4RX68b72DQ4DHXAbMvMaIdfxFleu9XHS8LZs5gair f7Cns0mWCGXLU4rioQJ9vPhcLLY033Dr0ob/wCfn6EHbvExtHT6L8G29XI8qxCzRsyZD rNWgBO81CWsOHbzG3J0XRYNfXjJmMVFS28bgjqtLvipB/QXe9/ufvjifskTMe3cXv6kw DGneFvwHkaav0qSfvhqpIXbSpq9Gvy5OCNRo7BWgg9btPMfz/ECTlGqU3Y4+2lMJ7dx4 eciQ==
Received: by 10.68.235.208 with SMTP id uo16mr4579384pbc.65.1352217730889; Tue, 06 Nov 2012 08:02:10 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.218.68 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Nov 2012 08:01:50 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <5097E725.808@skoberne.net>
References: <5097E725.808@skoberne.net>
From: Rana Sircar <sircar.rana@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 21:31:50 +0530
Message-ID: <CAPjPJcnpurYny4mTQ_C_EKe8XVGC4TgPiMsK5mfr95DrV_GVLg@mail.gmail.com>
To: ncrg@irtf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f3b55c682381e04cdd5b93e
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 16:02:11 -0000

Hi All,

Will it be possible to share the minutes of the discussions?

Best Regards,
Rana
GSM+919899003705|


On 5 November 2012 21:49, Nejc Škoberne <nejc@skoberne.net> wrote:

> 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
> ______________________________**_________________
> ncrg mailing list
> ncrg@irtf.org
> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/**listinfo/ncrg<https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/ncrg>
>