Re: [shara] Problem statement

Hi,

I've just submitted the following draft that could be valuable information for shara chartering:

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

	Title           : IPv4 Shortage Framework
	Author(s)       : P. Levis, et al.
	Filename        : draft-levis-behave-ipv4-shortage-framework-00.txt
	Pages           : 15
	Date            : 2009-01-28

This document analyses the main issues related to IPv4 Internet
access in the context of public IPv4 address exhaustion.  It would be
valuable to assess each IPv4 address shortage solution with all these
issues, to check to what degree they are concerned, how they handle
each issue, and to what extent they resolve the pending problems.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-levis-behave-ipv4-shortage-framework-00.txt

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : shara-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:shara-bounces@ietf.org] 
> De la part de Gabor.Bajko@nokia.com
> Envoyé : mercredi 28 janvier 2009 05:40
> À : shara@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [shara] Problem statement
> 
> 
> 
>   >-----Original Message-----
>   >From: ext Matthew Ford [mailto:ford@isoc.org]
>   >Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 3:52 PM
>   >To: Bajko Gabor (Nokia-CIC/MtView)
>   >Cc: omaennel@net.t-labs.tu-berlin.de; 
> magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com;
>   >shara@ietf.org
>   >Subject: Re: [shara] Problem statement
>   >
>   >Hi all,
>   >
>   >On 27/1/09 23:25, Gabor.Bajko@nokia.com wrote:
>   >> Hi Olaf,
>   >>
>   >> I think what SHARA should be intended to is:
>   >
>   >> b) develop solutions for the problems a shared IPv4 
> address creates:
>   >fragmentation, routing, tunneling, lack of port randomization, etc.
>   >
>   >If there were easy solutions for all the issues created by 
> widespread
>   >deployment of shared IPv4 addresses, we wouldn't need IPv6.
>   >
>   >I think an important work item to add to the charter is 
> documentation of
>   >as many of the issues that shared IPv4 addresses create that can be
>   >identified by the community at the time. Shared addresses 
> may (or may
>   >not) be necessary but they should come with a health warning.
> 
> Good point to add. The intention is to emphasize that this 
> solution is a temporary one to be used during the transition 
> period, and not an alternative to IPv6 (not even on the short term).
> 
>   >I can offer cycles to work on this.
> 
> Thanks, your input is needed and appreciated.
> - gabor
> 
>   >Mat
> _______________________________________________
> 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