Re: [addr-select-dt] meeting at san francisco

[Tim Chown <[e-mail]>]

So we need to consider the questions raised by draft-denis-v6ops-nat-addrsel
as well - as raised by Fred's recent mail.

Your comments on that are welcome too :)

Tim

On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 11:41:49PM +0000, Tim Chown wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Here are some notes from this morning's meeting, combined with
> a few lines to describe where we are with the -02 draft.
> 
> I think the important input from you chaps is to look at the 
> questions we should be asking the 6man WG and commenting on 
> these.   Are they appropriate?   Any missing?   Any unnecessary?
> 
> If you can give me feedback today I will convert the notes into
> slides to pass to Brian/Bob to upload to the agenda page.
> 
> --- General status ---
> 
> 
> General scope is site/enterprise network, where
> administrator wishes to convey policy to hosts
> - may be different to 'RFC3484 default' policy
> - may vary across site (with topology and/or time)
> - may change for a host as it moves within site
> 
> New address selection DT draft issued:
> - draft-chown-addr-select-considerations-02
> 
> Design Team is looking at:
> - frequency of updates - how dynamic are they?
> - approaches given the identified frequency of changes
> - host detection of polciy changes
> - whether an RFC3484 update is required
> 
> 
> Main changes since -01:
> - included nomadic nodes within a site
> - noted the multiple interface (mif) issue, e.g. VPN
> - possible policy conflicts (multiple admin domains)
> - should we have a 'priority' interface for conflicts?
> - initial notes on push vs pull solutions (pull = dhc = per host config)
> - note that indicator of default policy in effect is useful?
> - note that routing hints may be of value to a host
> 
> 
> Frequency:
> - most triggers are administrative (application of new policy)
> - higher if many nomadic hosts
> - higher if (changing) traffic engineering in use
> 
> 
> --- Questions for the 6man WG ---
> 
> 1) Overlap with mif
> - the DT is focused on site/enterprise networks which may have nomadic
>   nodes and may have multiple uplinks
> - mif is focused on mobile nodes
> - the DT should ensure all relevant scenarios are identified, the question
> is where solutions are progressed, and how collaboration with mif happens
> - what about a device in the site with an external VPN?
> - what about nodes that might 'accidentally' have multiple interfaces up?
> 
> 2) 3484 update how/when
> - some clear issues, like Rule 9, ULAs
> - can we proceed now independently of any requirements emerging from the DT?
> - it seems there is nothing affecting progress in parallel now?
> 
> 
> 3) Do we consider just one administrative domain?
> - simplifies considerations - because conflicts in policies unlikely
> - but what about one site with two uplinks from different providers? 
> - what about hosts in the site network that 'accidentally' or deliberately
>   attach to other networks (VPN, wireless, etc)?
> - solution we choose may affect the impact of being in multiple domains  
> 
> 4) Handling conflicts?
> - if we encounter them, how do we prioritise?
> - or do/can we merge?
> - perhaps one interface has higher priority?
> - perhaps fall back to default policy if conflicting policies received?
> 
> 5) Are we ready to move towards solution space?
> - push vs pull solutions
> - DHCP options seem preferable, allowing different policy per host
> 
> 6) Information from routing state?
> - pass routing information to host to assist decision?
> - some early mif draft(s) seem to be doing this (pushing routing info
>   rather than RFC3484 policy)
> 
> 7) Should 3484 be just node-specific?
> - or interface specific?
> - mif issue?
> 
> 8) What about application-specific limitations, e.g. firewalls?
> - assume out of scope
> 
> _______________________________________________
> addr-select-dt mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/addr-select-dt

-- 
Tim