Re: [shara] Updated BOF proposal
Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Fri, 30 January 2009 10:46 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 C81F028C211; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 02:46:28 -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 1D6583A692A for <shara@core3.amsl.com>;
Fri, 30 Jan 2009 02:46:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.165
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.165 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.084,
BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, 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 jhlfe3OU4-J5 for
<shara@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 02:46:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (mailgw4.ericsson.se [193.180.251.62]) by
core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C3A128C211 for <shara@ietf.org>;
Fri, 30 Jan 2009 02:46:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgw4.ericsson.se (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by
mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id DA4BB215D2;
Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:45:41 +0100 (CET)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3e-aa867bb00000429e-bc-4982da556ab3
Received: from esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se (unknown [153.88.253.124]) by
mailgw4.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with ESMTP id BD43A212BF;
Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:45:41 +0100 (CET)
Received: from esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se ([153.88.254.172]) by
esealmw126.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:45:41 +0100
Received: from [147.214.183.23] ([147.214.183.23]) by
esealmw128.eemea.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:45:41 +0100
Message-ID: <4982DA55.5080602@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:45:41 +0100
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: teemu.savolainen@nokia.com
References: <ZlzdcyDY1nt1@kRV1RHqY>
In-Reply-To: <ZlzdcyDY1nt1@kRV1RHqY>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Jan 2009 10:45:41.0358 (UTC)
FILETIME=[E54818E0:01C982C7]
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Cc: shara@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [shara] Updated BOF proposal
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: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: shara-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: shara-bounces@ietf.org
teemu.savolainen@nokia.com skrev: > Hi, > > IMHO there's third: we look at solution proposals currently not worked on elsewhere and during WG work pick the one that fulfills the agreed requirements best (including requirements of timing and complementing of existing solutions). > > That is why this is currently openly scoped. > > Personally, I can agree on focusing this BOF to just "port ranges" and then discuss on details of how that is accomplished (e.g. With DHCP). But I prefer having rough consensus on the scope instead of just pushing for what I myself prefer. > > I'd love to see opinions from still more people reading this list. Yes, I think this is an very important question that needs to be figured out about the scope. I think the description needs to be clear that it currently proposes an evaluate and pick phase on the solution. I think what technologies that are applicable to this is very depending on the problem one tries to solve. One of the big questions I have on the problem statement is what classes of legacy application you intended to support. Legacy client to sever application where the client towards the external uses an fractional address and which doesn't matter. Works fine with any allocation of address. Legacy application that have some IPv4 NAT traversal capabilities but still some specific requirements like particular port ranges or adjacent ports. Can they still work under a limited port range? Or do you need to capability to request and assign specific ports? Cheers Magnus Westerlund IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Ericsson AB | Phone +46 10 7148287 Färögatan 6 | Mobile +46 73 0949079 SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ shara mailing list shara@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shara
- [shara] Updated BOF proposal teemu.savolainen
- Re: [shara] Updated BOF proposal pierre.levis
- Re: [shara] Updated BOF proposal teemu.savolainen
- Re: [shara] Updated BOF proposal Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [shara] Updated BOF proposal teemu.savolainen