Subject: (ngtrans) generalized vs specialized DSTM?

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 18:38:42 +0300 (EEST)

Hello,

DSTM is a solution for a fairly specific problem, including e.g.:

 - shortage of IPv4 addresses
 - NAT not currently used, and is not acceptable
 - there's a lot of new equipment (no existing IPv4 infra) or one wants to
get rid of it or its maintenance (rather rare I think)
 - IPv4 addresses are needed fairly rarely (for most nodes, anyway), so
there are usually assumptions about the nodes' network usage

Therefore I think there needs to be a major decision whether we want to try
to strive for a more "generalized" version or not.

Only after that's been adequately addressed, better review is possible.

Btw, the editorial nits in my earlier version are all still valid.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 22:58:08 +0300 (EEST)

On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Bound, Jim wrote:
> Did you mean NAT "is used"?

No.  If NAT is already used, there is no service degradation if one would 
make DSTM server hand out private IPv4 addresses with more or less 
infinite lifetime and perform NAT.

> Or new enterprise just starting (same thing I guess)

Yep.
 
> decision by upper mgmt is to move to native IPv6 as expediently as
> possible.

Yep, though upper mgmt (hopefully?) should have a real reason to mandate 
something like this.
 
> I assume we consider the current dstm -08 draft the "generalized version"?

Applicability statement is rather generalized but the rest of the spec 
does not appear to be.  I've looked them at a bit, and choices would 
basically be like:
a) no changes
b) minimal changes (soften the wording etc.)
c) take out to an appendix or (better) a separate extension draft
d) write a "very generalized DSTM framework" draft (basically a variation 
of c)

If folks (I'd really like to see comments also from outside the document
authors, ie. the wg push) feel about the same way, I'm in favor of c).

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 23:20:48 +0300 (EEST)

On Thu, 19 Sep 2002, Bound, Jim wrote:
> DSTM can handout global v4 too.

Yes; I got the impression that was its primary purpose. (And IMO almost 
only reason DSTM ports would be useful except for some special cases)