Re: [shara] aplusp BOF

Hi Ralph,

There must be a misunderstanding here, I do not remember any arguments made against IPv4 address sharing during the shara BOF. The shara BOF was a non-wg forming BOF, and with the many presentations we had, we simply ran out of time and the BOF ended without conclusions.

When we first discussed this concept with Jari (way before the shara bof), he requested us to come up with practical solutions which would demonstrate that this concept is viable outside a lab environment. We believe we did that in the presentation during the shara bof. 

We even had presentation about this concept in behave, again meetings before the shara bof, and I do not remember any strong objections. There were people spotting issues here and there, but we addressed those in the shara bof. All this happened before anyone thought about using it with DS-Lite too. 

- Gabor

-----Original Message-----
From: shara-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:shara-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Ralph Droms
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 10:07 PM
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