IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [shara] SHARA preliminary agenda posted

Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> Fri, 06 November 2009 10:25 UTC

Return-Path: <randy@psg.com>
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 8A45C3A68A6 for <shara@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Nov 2009 02:25:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 gUZqEq9-hr66 for <shara@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Nov 2009 02:25:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ran.psg.com (ran.psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::36]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 903DC3A67EF for <shara@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Nov 2009 02:25:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=rmac.psg.com) by ran.psg.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <randy@psg.com>) id 1N6M10-0009t7-QT; Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:25:59 +0000
Received: from rmac.local.psg.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rmac.psg.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5771A2BE7C67; Fri, 6 Nov 2009 04:25:57 -0600 (CST)
Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 04:25:57 -0600
Message-ID: <m23a4shruy.wl%randy@psg.com>
From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CB6B89C5-FF85-466B-8674-5ACCF68ABE1B@cisco.com>
References: <070301ca5e44$5534c830$c6f0200a@cisco.com> <7C6E75E7-CC63-4E19-BD13-0F2C74E3C009@lilacglade.org> <074501ca5e49$ffea7720$c6f0200a@cisco.com> <4AF327A7.1070505@psg.com> <635562E0-6F11-45B9-BDCD-37C6A57CC548@cisco.com> <m2hbt8ianb.wl%randy@psg.com> <CB6B89C5-FF85-466B-8674-5ACCF68ABE1B@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.5 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Cc: shara@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [shara] SHARA preliminary agenda posted
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/mail-archive/web/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Nov 2009 10:25:39 -0000

>> i guess you don't need the nokia drafts at the france telecom bof
> To respond to that statement, I need to know what the nokia drafts  
> are.

the one referenced in a+p draft is draft-bajko-pripaddrassign-01.txt

> I also wasn't able to identify the Nokia mode of use from the A+P  
> documents I read, so I don't know what you're concerned about us  
> ruling out of scope for the BOF. 

again, from the a+p draft

4.2.  A+P for Mobile Providers

   In the case of mobile service provider the situation is slightly
   different.  The A+P border is assumed to be the gateway (e.g., GGSN/
   PDN GW of 3GPP, or ASN GW of WiMAX).  The need to extend the address
   is not within the provider network, but on the edge between the
   mobile phone devices and the gateway.  While desirable, IPv6
   connectivity may or may not be provided.

   ...

> However, A+P remains a function distinct from DS-lite, and at least
> deserves review in its own BOF.

then why did the iesg/iab say the bof was limited to the ds-lite
application?

randy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email