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
>