Re: [shara] Shara scope

<teemu.savolainen@nokia.com> Tue, 27 January 2009 07:24 UTC

Return-Path: <shara-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: shara-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-shara-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB2AB3A6B01; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 23:24:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: shara@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: shara@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 603D028C0E7 for <shara@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 23:24:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 LQ2OQacDAr2M for <shara@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 23:24:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mgw-mx03.nokia.com (smtp.nokia.com [192.100.122.230]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91DC53A689A for <shara@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Jan 2009 23:24:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh106.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.213]) by mgw-mx03.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.6/Switch-3.2.6) with ESMTP id n0R7NmYv017917; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 09:24:22 +0200
Received: from esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.183]) by esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 27 Jan 2009 09:24:18 +0200
Received: from smtp.mgd.nokia.com ([65.54.30.6]) by esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 27 Jan 2009 09:24:18 +0200
Received: from NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.106]) by nok-am1mhub-02.mgdnok.nokia.com ([65.54.30.6]) with mapi; Tue, 27 Jan 2009 08:24:17 +0100
From: <teemu.savolainen@nokia.com>
To: <pierre.levis@orange-ftgroup.com>, <shara@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 08:23:55 +0100
Thread-Topic: Shara scope
Thread-Index: Acl/s+fQbqY5EJjFQASUaGt+lEYm/wAmWk0w
Message-ID: <18034D4D7FE9AE48BF19AB1B0EF2729F27E8595A21@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com>
References: <D109C8C97C15294495117745780657AE0B27BADC@ftrdmel1>
In-Reply-To: <D109C8C97C15294495117745780657AE0B27BADC@ftrdmel1>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Jan 2009 07:24:18.0698 (UTC) FILETIME=[44373EA0:01C98050]
X-Nokia-AV: Clean
Subject: Re: [shara] Shara scope
X-BeenThere: shara@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Sharing of an IPv4 Address discussion list <shara.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shara>, <mailto:shara-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/shara>
List-Post: <mailto:shara@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:shara-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shara>, <mailto:shara-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1733359780=="
Sender: shara-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: shara-bounces@ietf.org

Hi,

And behave works with NATs.. I would think NAT, CGN, or multiple instances are not to be part of this work item as such, as those are already handled elsewhere?

What is not done elsewhere is the "port range" and its implications to protocols, networks, hosts, and applications.

What could be also discussed to some extent is port restricted IP address integration to some already existing solutions. For example DHCP-based port restricted IP address allocation mechanism could be used as DS-Lite extension, but also as stand-alone feature on point-to-point links. Also other address assignment methods, like MIP, could be extended with port restricted IP address allocation support.

Whatever mechanism to allocate these addresses is used, there are some common problems like how multiplexing/routing is to be done, blind attacks, protocols not having ports, fragmentation etc.

One approach could be to define here the concept of port restricted addresses and sort out the generic problems, and maybe define the DHCP extension as one mechanism, and leave the adoption of the concept to other technologies to be done in corresponding working groups.

Best regards,

    Teemu

________________________________
From: shara-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:shara-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext pierre.levis@orange-ftgroup.com
Sent: 26 January, 2009 14:45
To: shara@ietf.org
Subject: [shara] Shara scope


Hi,

So, shara deals with "port range" and softwire deals with DS-lite, which is fine with me, even if all IPv4 shared address solutions in the same WG would also make sense.

But what about other solutions? I'm thinking of CGN in its Double NAT version. It is a solution already deployed in some ISPs' networks and the only one currently available on shelves (even if DS-lite implementations make quick progress).

Shouldn't we integrate a BCP document in the "Proposed Work" section to cover this item? Basically considerations of where to locate the CGN and how to route the traffic between customers and CGN?



Pierre
_______________________________________________
shara mailing list
shara@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shara