Re: [shara] SHARA preliminary agenda posted

[Ralph Droms <[e-mail]>]

On Nov 6, 2009, at 7:25 PM 11/6/09, Randy Bush wrote:

>>> 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

OK, thanks.

>> 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.
>
>   ...

That last sentence - which I think is in conflict with constraint 10  
in section 2.1 - is why I'm concerned about this scenario.  It has the  
potential to provide more support to the continued use of IPv4 than is  
desirable.

>> 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

I'm willing to consider an extension to other tunnel/IPv6  
deployments.  But the basic technology needs  the development of  
details, as I expect we'll discuss in the BoF, that are unrelated to  
the specific tunneling technology.

- Ralph