Re: Updated agenda for the OPSAREA meeting

 
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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Harrington [mailto:[email protected]] 
> 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,
> 
> 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 protected]
> > [mailto:[email protected]] 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
> > 
> > An updated agenda for the Monday OPSAREA meeting is available at 
> > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/09mar/agenda/opsarea.txt
> > 
> > Dan
> > _______________________________________________
> > OPS-AREA mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ops-area
> > 
> 
>