Re: [shara] aplusp BOF

Ralph,

The DS-Lite essentially is encapsulation+CGN. The most commonly discussed encapsulation method is IPv4-over-IPv6. However, L2TP, PPP, GTP, etc "point-to-point" connections are also possible in addition to plain IPv6. This is mentioned in DS-Lite dradt as well. I believe these other encapsulation means are in the scope of the BOF? 

Best regards,

Teemu
________________________________________
From: shara-bounces@ietf.org [shara-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Ralph Droms [rdroms@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 8:07 AM
To: Rémi Després
Cc: shara@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [shara] aplusp BOF

But generalizations of A+P were argued against in the shara BOF.  A+P
represents a truly significant change to the IPv4 addressing
architecture that makes fundamental changes to the behavior of IP and
applications built on IP when implemented in a host.  By constraining
the problem space to the scenario with well-defined endpoints and a
well-defined forwarding mechanism, the BOF will have an opportunity to
focus on a case where it can be found to be useful.

- Ralph

On Oct 8, 2009, at 6:35 AM 10/8/09, Rémi Després wrote:

> Ralph,
>
> I fully support Randy's view.
>
> Having as A+P *on dual-stack lite* as "main objective" of an aplusp
> WG would be much too restrictive.
>
> Having it as a "minimum objective" would be OK though, because of
> recent progress made on this particular A+P application.
>
> The WG SHOULD be the place to determine which other architectures
> and signaling alternatives address new operational requirements, and
> therefore justify quick progress.
>
> In particular, while dual-stack lite is for IPv6-only ISPs, some
> ISPs will rather deploy IPv6 AND private IPv4 addressing on their
> infrastructures. They should also be able to take advantage of A+P.
> (These advantages are good to have: simple server reachability when
> communicating with IPv4-only remote hosts; restored end-to-end
> transparency for hosts that support A+P.)
>
> Similarly ISPs that only have private IPv4 routing so far, across
> which they can quickly deploy native IPv6 with 6rd, should also be
> able to take advantage of A+P. For this, IPv4 in IPv4 tunneling
> mentioned by Randy does make sense.
>
> Regards,
> RD
>
>
> There are other approaches
> Le 3 oct. 09 à 01:07, Randy Bush a écrit :
>
>>> The IESG has approved the aplusp BOF for IETF 76.  The BOF will be
>>> used to discuss A+P addressing and forwarding as it applies to
>>> dual-stack lite [draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite-01].
>>
>> excuse?  folk such as the wireless gang have a very different need
>> for
>> it, and an architecturally different spin.  some are using ipv4 over
>> ipv4 tunneling.  some are using very different signaling mechanisms.
>> etc.
>>
>> currently, ds-lite has been restricted to one view of provisioning.
>> this is a pretty restricted view.
>>
>> randy
>> _______________________________________________
>> shara mailing list
>> shara@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shara
>

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