Re: Updated agenda for the OPSAREA meeting

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.

>> 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)?
>>     

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