Re: IETF80 questions regarding "On demand IPv4 address provisioning in Dual-Stack PPP deployment" - Topic for WG?

Requiring the CPE to be a gateway rather than a host running arbitrary appl=
ications
is one way to restrict directly connected nodes to a specific set of pre-te=
sted applications.

-Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joshua Shire [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 10:31 AM
> To: Cameron Byrne; Dave Thaler
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [Int-area] IETF80 questions regarding "On demand IPv4 address
> provisioning in Dual-Stack PPP deployment" - Topic for WG?
> =

> I'll second this. Most of the new SMB level gateway devices we're seeing =
on the
> market support some type of USB connected 3G/HSPA dial-on demand system
> as a backup link. We've implemented it quite extensively with little to no
> problems.
> =

> Josh
> =

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Beh=
alf
> Of Cameron Byrne
> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 11:17 AM
> To: Dave Thaler
> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Int-area] IETF80 questions regarding "On demand IPv4 address
> provisioning in Dual-Stack PPP deployment" - Topic for WG?
> =

> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Dave Thaler <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > Mark Townsley wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Applications may not be all that forgiving to IPv4 coming and going
> >> either, e.g., I have a popular mail client that has recently taken to
> >> crashing when I switch from wired to wireless and get a different IP
> >> address in the process. Some of the IM connections I keep up recover
> >> quickly to IP changes, others do not. The IETF has a whole WG (DNA)
> >> dedicated to this tricky behavior of an IP address coming and going -
> >> it's not always easy, in particular when the link-layer is not giving
> >> your IP stack any up/down notification, which I believe by definition =
is what
> your proposal requires from the very start.
> > [...]
> >
> > I'll second the above. =A0 This is very problematic for some applicatio=
ns.
> > (Other solutions like DSTM that have on-demand IP addresses have this
> > same issue.)
> >
> > So any network that deploys such a solution in anything other than a
> > tightly controlled environment where directly connected nodes are
> > restricted to a specific set of pre-tested applications, will likely re=
sult in many
> support calls.
> >
> =

> Is this really different from the dial-on-demand routing that has existed=
 for
> years and still exist as  common backup connectivity technique?
> =

> I assume that this would be implemented on an Home Gateway which provides
> consistent addressing to IPv4 hosts within the home, and dial-on-demand t=
ype
> mechanism request the IPv4 address to the home gateway to do NAT44 in the
> event of an IPv4 stream arrives.
> =

> =

> Cameron
> _______________________________________________
> Int-area mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area