Re: [shara] aplusp BOF

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