Re: [shara] Problem statement

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Olaf,

I think what SHARA should be intended to is:

a) develop methods for port-restricted IPv4 address allocation (using dhcp, ipcp, dsmip, mip4, proxy-mip, whatelse), as a new/additional method for transition to IPv6

b) develop solutions for the problems a shared IPv4 address creates: fragmentation, routing, tunneling, lack of port randomization, etc.

c) usage of port restricted IP address to improve network architectures (distributed NATs instead of CGNs, etc)

The link you sent together with your document (draft-ymbk-aplusp-02.txt) provide solutions for some of the issues listed in b) and c) above, but that is part of the solution space instead of the problem statement.

If the above points are acceptable, we can work on charter text based those points and come up with text during this week.

- gabor


  >-----Original Message-----
  >From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
  >ext Olaf Maennel
  >Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 5:02 AM
  >To: Magnus Westerlund
  >Cc: [e-mail]
  >Subject: Re: [shara] Problem statement
  >
  >
  >Hi,
  >
  >could section 1 and 1.1 from our tech-report (see
  >http://mice.cs.columbia.edu/getTechreport.php?techreportID=560) serve as
  >a
  >beginning for this problem statement? or should it better come from a
  >different direction?
  >
  >    olaf
  >
  >
  >On 27/01/09 2:44 PM, "Magnus Westerlund" <[e-mail]>
  >wrote:
  >
  >> Hi,
  >>
  >> I would like to see a better Problem Statement for SHARA. I already
  >> gotten questions about the problem statement. I can kind of guess
  >having
  >> been involved in the discussion of the related work. But I think there
  >> is need for a collected problem statement for SHARA.
  >>
  >> This also relates to a question that needs to be answered i a good way
  >> to enable chartering. Why the problem scope and intended solution
  >> proposed? I interpreted Pierre Levis' comments that there clearly are
  >> other solutions and what about them. From my perspective as an AD I
  >> don't think "let all flowers bloom" is the answer to the IPv4-Ipv6
  >> coexistence and migration issues. We are here to provide recommended
  >> solutions within a reasonable time frame so that it actually can impact
  >> the market. We don't have forever here, and that is why dual-stack lite
  >> was chartered, what appeared to be a reasonable solution and one which
  >> we can think IETF can finish documenting this year.
  >>
  >> So is what SHARA proposes necessary, a sufficient improvement, resolve
  >> previously non-handled issues? Should we do it now or focus on first
  >> completing the already chartered items in Softwire and Behave?
  >>
  >> For your knowledge, I need most of these answers quickly. The IESG and
  >> IAB have their call to discuss the BOFs next Thursday. By then I need
  >to
  >> know as much as possible to have the right discussion about this BOF
  >> proposal's approval or not.
  >>
  >> Cheers
  >>
  >> Magnus Westerlund
  >>
  >> IETF Transport Area Director & TSVWG Chair
  >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
  >> Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
  >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
  >> Ericsson AB                | Phone  [phone]
  >> Färögatan 6                | Mobile [phone]
  >> SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [e-mail]
  >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
  >> _______________________________________________
  >> 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