Subject: [OPS-AREA] Updated agenda for the OPSAREA meeting

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 13:38:16 +0100

An updated agenda for the Monday OPSAREA meeting is available at
http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/agenda/opsarea.txt

Dan

---

From: "David Harrington" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 10:07:20 -0400

Hi,

This proposal does not seem to be OPS-area specific. 

Wouldn't the discussion of using double NATs for IPv4 address sharing
be better done in the "Sharing of an IPv4 Address BOF" (SHARA BOF)?
or the IPv6 Address Independence BOF?
or the BEHAVE WG or SOFTWIRE WG?
or the INTAREA meeting (where it is on the agenda already)

These proposals seem much more oriented to INT or TSV areas than OPS.
Why is this an OPS-area discussion?

dbh 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 8:38 AM
> To: ops-area (IETF)
> Subject: [OPS-AREA] Updated agenda for the OPSAREA meeting
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OPS-AREA mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area
>

---

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 15:38:33 +0100

Just for folks to follow, David refers to item #4 in the agenda - ISP
Shared Addresses - Akira Nagakawa - 30 min

My understanding is that the scope of the two drafts here is beyond the
scope of SHARA and the other WGs you mention, and deals with shared ISP
addresses space which is (also) an operators problem. But yes, it could
have been in INTAREA as well. We discussed between the INT and OPS ADs
where to deal with this in order to avoid duplication and we decided to
have the discussion in the OPSAREA meeting, with only a short
presentation in INTAREA (who meet just before OPS) that will just make
sure that people there know where the bulk of the discussion is
happening. 

Dan

> From: David Harrington [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2009 4:07 PM
> To: Romascanu, Dan (Dan); 'ops-area (IETF)'
> Subject: RE: [OPS-AREA] Updated agenda for the OPSAREA meeting
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Wouldn't the discussion of using double NATs for IPv4 address 
> sharing be better done in the "Sharing of an IPv4 Address 
> BOF" (SHARA BOF)?

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 07:55:47 -0700

David,

>> This proposal does not seem to be OPS-area specific. 

We needed a place to discuss it, and while there is no perfect place, it 
seemed that IETF guidance on address allocation issues is at least to an 
extent an operational question.

>> sharing be better done in the "Sharing of an IPv4 Address 

SHARA is about the sharing of a public address between multiple 
subscribers and about distributed NATs.

Shared ISP addresses are a different issue; its about the use of the 
same private address space by multiple networks.

>> or the IPv6 Address Independence BOF?

No, 6AI is about possible addition of NAT functionality to IPv6.

>> or the BEHAVE WG or SOFTWIRE WG?

BEHAVE would be a potentially good place for this, but their agenda is 
already quite full for their protocol work.

SOFTWIRE is not really dealing with address space allocation.

There is also an argument that this is a big enough question to justify 
area-level discussion, as opposed to something being decided in a WG. We 
are talking about allocating one or several of the remaining /8s!

>> or the INTAREA meeting (where it is on the agenda already)

INTAREA would potentially be a good place for this as well (and we 
talked about it there the last time). However, the involved ADs talked 
about this and decided that OPSAREA would be a better place.

Jari