Re: [shara] SHARA preliminary agenda posted

["Lee, Yiu" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Manish,

I read the white paper available on the website. Section V mentions that A+P
requires NAT-like middle device but PE-ARP does not. I am not 100% following
this statement. The reason why A+P proposes to implement the feature in a
NAT box is to make sure all the existing applications which use random
source ports can continue to function. This is not a requirement one must
use A+P NAT. In A+P host model, the host can be given a port-range and
initiate sessions without using any middle device. The host model will
require the OS to understand A+P.

A+P does require its upstream router (Port-Range Router) aware of
port-range. In PE-ARP, this is similar. There must be a middle device
(PE-ARP Enabled Router) that implements the PE-ARP so that the it can send
the PE-ARP request.

In the end, I see A+P and PE-ARP share the same concept but implement it in
different layer.

Cheers,
Yiu


On 11/5/09 4:21 PM, "mkarir" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> 
> Hi Dan,
> 
> Though we wont be able to make it to the BoF in Hiroshima, I thought
> we would let folks
> know about our L2 based approach to implementing port sharing.
> Both the paper description as well as working code are at:
> 
> http://software.merit.edu/pe-arp/
> 
> We recently also presented our work at the NANOG meeting:
> 
> http://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog47/presentations/Tuesday/Karir_pearp_N47_Tu
> es.pdf
> 
> We do not have an IETF draft yet, but expect to have one ready for the
> next IETF mtg.
> 
> -manish
> 
> 
> 
> On Nov 5, 2009, at 1:58 PM, Dan Wing wrote:
> 
>>> >> -----Original Message-----
>>> >> From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>> >> Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 10:30 AM
>>> >> To: Dan Wing
>>> >> Cc: [e-mail]
>>> >> Subject: Re: [shara] SHARA preliminary agenda posted
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi Dan,
>>> >>
>>> >> There doesn't seem to be an A+P document on the agenda...
>>> >>
>>> >> When we talk about A+P, are we specifically discussing
>>> >> http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ymbk-aplusp-05.txt?
>> >
>> > No, by "A+P" we are generalizing to include solutions that
>> > provide TCP/UDP ports to a subscriber, including so far:
>> >
>> >  A+P, draft-ymbk-aplusp
>> >  Port Range, draft-boucadair-port-range
>> >  Port Range + IPv6, draft-boucadair-behave-ipv6-portrange
>> >  SAM, draft-despres-softwire-mesh-sam
>> >  Dual IVI, draft-xli-behave-divi
>> >
>> > Pierre Levis's presentation provides a high level overview
>> > of A+P without going into the differences of those I-Ds
>> > on the wire.
>> >
>> > -d
>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks,
>>> >> Margaret
>>> >>
>>> >> On Nov 5, 2009, at 1:18 PM, Dan Wing wrote:
>>> >>
>>>> >>> This is still subject to change, as Christian is traveling, but I
>>>> >>> believe this
>>>> >>> is close to our agenda for the APLUSP BoF,
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09nov/agenda/aplusp.html
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> -d
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>>> >>> shara mailing list
>>>> >>> [e-mail]
>>>> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shara
>>> >>
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > shara mailing list
>> > [e-mail]
>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shara
> 
> _______________________________________________
> shara mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shara
>