Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] updating RFC8026 with draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas

JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es> Wed, 13 June 2018 21:36 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=17023f6860=jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60A4C130FCA; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 14:36:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=consulintel.es
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 5afMJR_JDEzI; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 14:36:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.consulintel.es (mail.consulintel.es [IPv6:2001:470:1f09:495::5]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E92F130F83; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 14:36:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=consulintel.es; s=MDaemon; t=1528925784; x=1529530584; i=jordi.palet@consulintel.es; q=dns/txt; h=User-Agent:Date: Subject:From:To:Message-ID:Thread-Topic:Mime-version: Content-type:Content-transfer-encoding; bh=NIAY0Y705T2r0qmgicUlJ O/X0wJNmkiqVqg9DQJE1AE=; b=VjQATXbqWWaLzO2wFFOOFoDAljGxLpDRSphVB M+Gh61WAN60d9op2ylczVZnq7+qtdex5seQyR+Hjb7iA9FMin+QdTXqdD3Qr/45G +qOp3PRKvI6KDOFH8Fs849NKPCd+co2MoOBHYfLPLqpDIRrEkEUZ+0R5hfFuD2pM t18/N8=
X-MDAV-Result: clean
X-MDAV-Processed: mail.consulintel.es, Wed, 13 Jun 2018 23:36:24 +0200
X-Spam-Processed: mail.consulintel.es, Wed, 13 Jun 2018 23:36:23 +0200
Received: from [10.10.10.129] by mail.consulintel.es (MDaemon PRO v16.5.2) with ESMTPA id md50005789039.msg; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 23:36:21 +0200
X-MDRemoteIP: 2001:470:1f09:495:805d:c4f7:3647:ac38
X-MDHelo: [10.10.10.129]
X-MDArrival-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 23:36:21 +0200
X-Authenticated-Sender: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-Return-Path: prvs=17023f6860=jordi.palet@consulintel.es
X-Envelope-From: jordi.palet@consulintel.es
User-Agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.e.0.180610
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 23:36:19 +0200
From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "softwires@ietf.org" <softwires@ietf.org>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <574BFC33-78CD-4282-97E1-1F0D5B6B4FDD@consulintel.es>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] updating RFC8026 with draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/pgz8PHyIBLWBUOfbUuVRgx5aJmc>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [v6ops] updating RFC8026 with draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 21:36:29 -0000

Hi Bernie,



Thanks a lot for looking at this.



I may be wrong, but I think they are different "option codes" tables and should not be a conflict.



If I'm wrong it means the RFC8026 table it's just a subset, which is confusing when you look into the IANA web page, because looks like different tables ...



I was looking at https://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-parameters/dhcpv6-parameters.xhtml



There is a specific table for RFC8026 option codes:



Option Code 	S46 Mechanism 	Reference 

64	DS-Lite	[RFC6334]

88	DHCPv4 over DHCPv6	[RFC7341]

94	MAP-E	[RFC7598]

95	MAP-T	[RFC7598]

96	Lightweight 4over6	[RFC7598]



This table right now is matching the RFC8026, as no other option codes have been added after.



Those option codes (64, 88, etc.), also match other DHCPv6 option codes, in the main table. In some cases, is very clear it has the same meaning, but in others I'm not sure ...



But of course, this is a minor detail, and as you say it looks like 46 (OPTION_CLT_TIME) is something never will have a conflict with RFC8026, so we can explicitly say that, or we can just ask IANA to assign whatever is the most convenient one. I'm fine either way.



Thanks!



Regards,

Jordi

 

 



-----Mensaje original-----

De: v6ops <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org> en nombre de "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>

Fecha: miércoles, 13 de junio de 2018, 23:02

Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet=40consulintel.es@dmarc.ietf.org>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "softwires@ietf.org" <softwires@ietf.org>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>

Asunto: Re: [v6ops] updating RFC8026 with draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas



    Hi Jordi:

    

    Haven't look at the draft in detail yet, but I did find it rather odd that you are using option code 46. As these are DHCPv6 option codes, this maps to:

    

    Value 	Description 		Client ORO 	Singleton Option  	Reference

    46	OPTION_CLT_TIME	No		Yes			[RFC5007]

    

    I understand that you may have picked this simply because it is a nice number for v4/v6 transition mechanisms. But it seems like a rather odd mapping.

    

    If you really think this is a wise thing to do, you should at least document that you are requesting this because of its value (and because it would never "really" be used for RFC 8026) - not that this OPTION_CLT_TIME option itself has any meaning.

    

    It may be better to request that IANA assign a DHCPv6 option for this purpose - which should otherwise never be requested by a client (or configured on a server).

    

    - Bernie

    

    -----Original Message-----

    From: dhcwg <dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ

    Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 12:46 PM

    To: dhcwg@ietf.org; softwires@ietf.org; v6ops@ietf.org

    Subject: [dhcwg] updating RFC8026 with draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas

    

    Hi all,

    

    

    

    I'm sending this to Sotfwires and DHC WGs, in order to let know and seek review, but please keep the discussion only in v6ops which is responsible of this document

    

    

    

    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas/

    

    

    

    Here is the short summary of the reasons for the update.

    

    

    

    In order to prioritize the different IPv4-as-a-Service (in IPv6-only networks) transition mechanisms (so the ISP can "agree" with each CPE which one to use or even if none), we are using RFC8026 (in short "a DHCPv6-Based Prioritization Mechanism for IPv4-in-IPv6 CPEs"), which was developed in softwires, but it is a DHCPv6 based mechanism.

    

    

    

    The interesting issue is that because 464XLAT don't have an option code in RFC8026, it can't be ranked the same way, and ideally it should be, as we use also that in order to facilitate the operator to "manage" each transition mechanism status to be on/off (even to different customers).

    

    

    

    So, what we do with this update, is adding that option code for 464XLAT to the existing ones and instruct IANA about that.

    

    

    

    If you want to understand the suggested updated and how our algorithm works, you can read directly section 3.3, 7 and 10. Of course, inputs on the complete document are welcome!

    

    

    

    Thanks!

    

    

    

    Regards,

    

    Jordi

    

     

    

     

    

    

    

    

    **********************************************

    IPv4 is over

    Are you ready for the new Internet ?

    http://www.consulintel.es

    The IPv6 Company

    

    This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.

    

    

    

    _______________________________________________

    dhcwg mailing list

    dhcwg@ietf.org

    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

    

    _______________________________________________

    v6ops mailing list

    v6ops@ietf.org

    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

    




**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.