From nobody Thu Dec 4 01:34:26 2014 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hiaps@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: hiaps@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 932941A00DF; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 01:34:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.859 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.859 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z_WPTcdDwZ3t; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 01:34:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from tcmail13.telekom.de (tcmail13.telekom.de [80.149.113.165]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50D7B1A0101; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 01:34:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from s4de8nsazdfe010.bmbg.telekom.de ([10.175.246.202]) by tcmail11.telekom.de with ESMTP; 04 Dec 2014 10:34:12 +0100 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,514,1413237600"; d="scan'208,217";a="578308336" Received: from he111630.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.22]) by q4de8nsa015.bmbg.telekom.de with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 04 Dec 2014 10:34:05 +0100 Received: from HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([10.134.93.124]) by HE111630.emea1.cds.t-internal.com ([::1]) with mapi; Thu, 4 Dec 2014 10:33:51 +0100 From: To: Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 10:33:50 +0100 Thread-Topic: extra identifier need in SFC Thread-Index: AdAPpUjhmNn+H6uoQ0Kdyzhkj90+Ng== Message-ID: <05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A2E9F3BB42E@HE113484.emea1.cds.t-internal.com> Accept-Language: de-DE Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: de-DE Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A2E9F3BB42EHE113484emea1_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hiaps/JZf8_iVtubkUT-qB4MadWFbd7Go Cc: joelja@bogus.com, hiaps@ietf.org Subject: [hiaps] extra identifier need in SFC X-BeenThere: hiaps@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: "Host Identification, Address and Prefix Sharing in Wi-Fi Access \(hiaps\)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2014 09:34:23 -0000 --_000_05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A2E9F3BB42EHE113484emea1_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi all, Last May we had submitted a draft https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarikaya-sfc-address-sharing-in-sfc-00 on host identification problem in SFC which addresses some related use cas= es and aims at discussion on corresponding requirements and architecture is= sues. In http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-boucadair-sfc-design-analysis-03.txt whe= re solution design options are analyzed and recommendations given, the need= for an additional identifier is also mentioned. We are not sure whether this (not SFC specific) problem may call for soluti= ons complimentary to those for use cases which are currently considered in = SFC. To not overload or burden the WG with this issue at this time we think it m= ay be useful to proceed with discussions on these and possibly other relate= d use cases on the hiaps list (hiaps@ietf.org) deali= ng with Host Identification, Address and Prefix Sharing to take it up and g= o from there. What do you think? We invite SFC'ers to join hiaps if not already done and help us tackle this= problem. Regards, Dirk and Behcet --_000_05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A2E9F3BB42EHE113484emea1_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi all,<= /o:p>

 

Last May we had submitted a draft

= https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sarikaya-sfc-address-sharing-in= -sfc-00

on  host identificat= ion problem in SFC which addresses some related use cases and aims at discu= ssion on corresponding requirements and architecture issues.

=

In http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-boucadair-sf= c-design-analysis-03.txt  where solution design options are analyz= ed and recommendations given, the need for an additional identifier is also= mentioned.

We are not sure whether t= his (not SFC specific) problem may call for solutions complimentary to thos= e for use cases which are currently considered in SFC.

To not overload or burden the WG with this issue at this = time we think it may be useful to proceed with discussions on these and pos= sibly other related use cases on the hiaps list (hiaps@ietf.org) dealing with Host Identification, Address and P= refix Sharing to take it up and go from there.

What do you think?

We invit= e SFC'ers to join hiaps if not already done and help us tackle this problem= .

 

Regards,

 

Dirk and Behcet

= --_000_05C81A773E48DD49B181B04BA21A342A2E9F3BB42EHE113484emea1_--