[OPSAWG] Feedback LSN Deployment Draft
Victor Kuarsingh <victor.kuarsingh@gmail.com> Thu, 02 August 2012 22:40 UTC
Return-Path: <victor.kuarsingh@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: opsawg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 397D511E80A5; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 15:40:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.235
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id beccnGcz-2zl; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 15:40:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f172.google.com (mail-ob0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55F4A11E80A2; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 15:40:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obbwc20 with SMTP id wc20so80405obb.31 for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:40:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:message-id:thread-topic :mime-version:content-type; bh=cfkuWQZh+dIlunpesIJneKuPLbg5bjPat9YYu45jf9E=; b=Qdby3yyLz14IhkLaj6axCyUVy2dX4UbjSZ/a16P2wZuR62btF4YyGYTy/btsNaUi2g P9FR3vG6xUlge+7v4Mn3TPZRLf06aW6y0d08CtEDBUYettvSmFCOWGEupl/Y35PKq9WW z24RvnnKRtzBamb0eGHutvNuEixr6j39FQfLA9NokJKZf1iBGBwcWT8KGAmYElssOdn5 bS6lSzq+02/PApZj4AYAfKYfAcuysvFrHUPyAavwyI7jgFq7H/1EZ0SRVKIX3U87Cc3J DW1XL+iLSW+yBCJiNKIZrn4+P3/YP6R2j2ZXkKpj5icmD30BN4Trg2VelkQqrDZFCScx Ya/A==
Received: by 10.60.30.170 with SMTP id t10mr40608345oeh.10.1343947227840; Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:40:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [130.129.19.190] (dhcp-13be.meeting.ietf.org. [130.129.19.190]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id hz6sm7413083obb.1.2012.08.02.15.40.24 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:40:26 -0700 (PDT)
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.0.0.100825
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:40:21 -0700
From: Victor Kuarsingh <victor.kuarsingh@gmail.com>
To: behave@ietf.org, sunset4@ietf.org, opsawg@ietf.org
Message-ID: <CC404FE5.1DA11%victor.kuarsingh@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: Feedback LSN Deployment Draft
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3426766825_19161737"
Subject: [OPSAWG] Feedback LSN Deployment Draft
X-BeenThere: opsawg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: OPSA Working Group Mail List <opsawg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/opsawg>
List-Post: <mailto:opsawg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg>, <mailto:opsawg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 22:40:29 -0000
OPSAWG/Behave/Sunset4 WGs, Following further consideration in OPSAWG, the Chairs have requested addition opportunity for feedback from the Behave and Sunset4 WGs regarding draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployment-00. (link - http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsawg-lsn-deployment-00) What we are looking for is technical feedback on the architecture/concepts defined in the draft. What we are NOT looking for is opinions on why CGN is bad. I expect there may be textual updates needed along with other minor items. There was also a plan to remove the "Performance" section which was originally added before other drafts were available discussing CGN/NAT444 impacts (like draft-donley-nat444-impacts) The document presupposes an operator has decided to do CGN/NAT444 (business/technical reasons particular to them) and therefore may require architectural options on how to deploy this in an existing network. The document offers once such option using BGP/MPLS IP VPNs. I appreciate feedback. Regards, Victor K
- [OPSAWG] Feedback LSN Deployment Draft Victor Kuarsingh