[BEHAVE] Address format documentation plan
Dave Thaler <dthaler@windows.microsoft.com> Tue, 16 June 2009 05:24 UTC
Return-Path: <dthaler@windows.microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: behave@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: behave@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB9733A6830 for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:24:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.412
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.412 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.187, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yOCPt1zUZkwA for <behave@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:24:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (mail3.microsoft.com [131.107.115.214]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBED83A6890 for <behave@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:24:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TK5EX14MLTC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.79.159) by TK5-EXGWY-E803.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.169) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.99.4; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:24:51 -0700
Received: from TK5EX14MLTW651.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com (157.54.71.39) by TK5EX14MLTC104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.79.159) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.0.601.1; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:24:51 -0700
Received: from TK5EX14MBXW653.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([169.254.3.224]) by TK5EX14MLTW651.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com ([157.54.71.39]) with mapi; Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:24:50 -0700
From: Dave Thaler <dthaler@windows.microsoft.com>
To: BEHAVE WG <behave@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Address format documentation plan
Thread-Index: AcnuQsCJCgUgjLroSnyu/iD5F1zfjw==
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 05:24:42 +0000
Message-ID: <E4561B14EE2A3E4E9D478EBFB5416E1B077FC9@TK5EX14MBXW653.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [BEHAVE] Address format documentation plan
X-BeenThere: behave@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: mailing list of BEHAVE IETF WG <behave.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave>
List-Post: <mailto:behave@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave>, <mailto:behave-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 05:24:41 -0000
The chairs have been discussing how to proceed with the documentation plan regarding the address format and prefix. First, we observed that there are actually two mostly orthogonal technical issues: Issue #1: Choice of IPv6 prefix Issue #2: Choice of method by which the remainder of the IPv6 address is derived from an IPv4 address For issue #1, there's two alternatives: LIR vs WKP. For issue #2, there's been multiple proposals already (and we actually expect there to be more), including: a) Zero-pad and embed IPv4 address at the end b) Embed IPv4 address right after the prefix, and zero-pad the rest c) Use some reversible hash over the IPv4 address to get another set of bits and put that in somewhere What we would like to see is one doc (separate from the framework, DNS64, NAT64, SIIT update, and FTP ALG, docs) that would be a standards track document, and covers both of the above issues and gives per-scenario recommendations for each. It would specify requirements for algorithms that would apply to any new algorithms proposed later, and then specify one or more actual algorithms prescriptively. It would likely also point out that the choice of algorithm is not required to be the same in all networks, but having a small number makes implementing them easier. The above doc, plus SIIT update, would together obsolete the two pieces of the existing SIIT RFC. There are docs (like draft-xli-behave-v4v6-prefix-00.txt) that cover most of issue #1 but still need some work on per-scenario recommendations, and hence may have some text that could be incorporated into the combined doc. The other WG docs (framework, DNS64, NAT64, SIIT update, FTP ALG, anything else) would then contain no normative details of any algorithm, but would be allowed to point to the above doc either informatively or normatively (e.g., if the above doc specified multiple algorithms, it would be legal to point to the entire doc, or to a single algorithm within it, as needed). To give folks a more clear idea of what we're looking for, here's a sample title and outline: Title: IPv6 Addressing of IPv6/IPv4 Address Translators (Note an "address translator" is anything that has to derive an IPv6 address from an IPv4 address or vice versa, which applies to DNS64 and possible other ALGs, not just a NAT64 or stateless translator.) Outline: * Introduction - IPv6 Addresses assigned to IPv6 hosts - IPv6 Addresses used for IPv4 hosts * Prefix Selection - Requirements (routing system scalability, effect on applications, etc) - LIR * definition, scenario-independent discussion - WKP * definition, scenario-independent discussion - Scenario-specific discussions/recommendations * Scenario 1 * Scenario 2 * ... * Scenario 6 * IPv6 Address Format & Address Translation Algorithms - MUST/SHOULD/MAY Requirements for algorithms (e.g., reversible, checksum neutrality, ability to pretty-print an address in string format with an IPv4 address in dotted decimal like ::FFFF:1.2.3.4 does, ability to hide an IPv4 address from "smart" ALGs, ability to hide details of internal IPv4 subnetting) - v4-mapped (as used by RFC 3493 and RFC 2765) * definition, discussion - v4-translatable (as used by RFC 2765) * definition, discussion (perhaps deprecate them by this document?) - Pref64 (padding then address) * definition, discussion - IVI (address then padding) * definition, discussion - Pre-configured mapping table * definition, discussion - Scenario-specific discussions/recommendations * Scenario 1 * Scenario 2 * ... * Scenario 6 The current thinking is that the chairs will take a shot at building -00 from existing drafts/emails with the goal to transition the doc to willing volunteers for -01. Anyone who authored a current draft from which text is pulled would be listed as a contributor unless they ask not to be. We're also interested in using some sort of issue tracking system, which could be http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/behave/trac/report/1 or could simply be a web page maintained by the editor(s), or whatever else works. -Dave Thaler and Dan Wing
- [BEHAVE] Address format documentation plan Dave Thaler
- Re: [BEHAVE] Address format documentation plan marcelo bagnulo braun
- Re: [BEHAVE] Address format documentation plan mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [BEHAVE] Address format documentation plan Xing Li