Re: [shara] Updated SHARA BOF description

I think Rémi's proposal exactly covers the distinction I made.

So I'm fine with this proposal, with a CPE being either a host or a router

Pierre

-----Message d'origine-----
De : shara-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:shara-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Rémi Després
Envoyé : jeudi 5 mars 2009 14:42
À : marcelo bagnulo braun
Cc : shara@ietf.org
Objet : Re: [shara] Updated SHARA BOF description

Marcello,

I agree with Teemu that "Distributed NAT" should not be used as a generic term for the solution space.

Among alternatives, I like "Port-Extended IPv4 addressing". It seems to be general enough.

In this framework:
- some CPEs will use ISP provided "Private IPv4 addresses", with some NATs used in ISP infrastructures, and dynamic port sharing. This is the "provider-NAT" based approach (note that the term CGN has faced various objections, from James Woodyatt in particular).
- some CPEs will use "Port-Restricted IPv4 addresses", without NAT used in ISP infrastructures, and static port sharing. This is the Port-range" 
based approach.

Regards,
RD

marcelo bagnulo braun  -  le (m/j/a) 3/5/09 1:03 PM:
> teemu.savolainen@nokia.com escribió:
>>  But do we then have to call that as distributed NAT, as doesn't the 
>> name choice hint on one aspect of the internal side functionality 
>> then? Rather "distributed addresses" or "distributed shared 
>> addresses" or something?
>
> SHARA approaches?

_______________________________________________
shara mailing list
shara@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shara