Re: IAB last call... Re: [ipv6-dir] Re: Updated document
"Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Espoo)" <jonne.soininen@nokia.com> Mon, 09 January 2006 15:08 UTC
Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Evydg-0001FJ-SX; Mon, 09 Jan 2006 10:08:52 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Evydd-0001FB-M0; Mon, 09 Jan 2006 10:08:51 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA20377; Mon, 9 Jan 2006 10:07:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mgw-ext04.nokia.com ([131.228.20.96]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Evyk8-0007SE-Ed; Mon, 09 Jan 2006 10:15:33 -0500
Received: from esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh106.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.213]) by mgw-ext04.nokia.com (Switch-3.1.7/Switch-3.1.7) with ESMTP id k09F6lup014855; Mon, 9 Jan 2006 17:06:48 +0200
Received: from esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.183]) by esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 9 Jan 2006 17:08:33 +0200
Received: from esebe100.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.118]) by esebh102.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 9 Jan 2006 17:08:34 +0200
Received: from 172.21.155.53 ([172.21.155.53]) by esebe100.NOE.Nokia.com ([172.21.138.118]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Mon, 9 Jan 2006 15:08:32 +0000
Received: from essrv103nok155120.ntc.nokia.com by esebe100.noe.nokia.com; 09 Jan 2006 17:08:32 +0200
Subject: Re: IAB last call... Re: [ipv6-dir] Re: Updated document
From: "Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Espoo)" <jonne.soininen@nokia.com>
To: ext Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <200601091455.k09Et2c2020603@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
References: <200601091455.k09Et2c2020603@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: NET/ST/IED
Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2006 17:08:31 +0200
Message-Id: <1136819311.6336.61.camel@essrv103nok155120.ntc.nokia.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 (2.0.2-16.3)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Jan 2006 15:08:34.0295 (UTC) FILETIME=[8F448870:01C6152E]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9178bae9f85419fdc08e9f2c86e345d0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "<john.loughney@nokia.com> (Nokia-NRC/Helsinki) John" <john.loughney@nokia.com>, Leslie Daigle <leslie@thinkingcat.com>, IAB IAB <iab@ietf.org>, ipv6-dir@ietf.org, Margaret Wasserman <MRW@devicescape.com>, Bradner Scott <sob@harvard.edu>, Scott W Brim <sbrim@cisco.com>, Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>
X-BeenThere: ipv6-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IPv6 Directorate <ipv6-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-dir>, <mailto:ipv6-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-dir>, <mailto:ipv6-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ipv6-dir-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ipv6-dir-bounces@ietf.org
Hi, I agree with Thomas. The LS should be simple, mostly refer to content that has been produced or is ongoing as WG items. I think trying to give them some sort of list what has been produced with pointers (and some textual padding to make the LS readable). I think this should be the first step towards more cooperation and to attract interest from ITU-T to work more in the future with the IETF - directly on the WG level. Cheers, Jonne. On Mon, 2006-01-09 at 09:55 -0500, ext Thomas Narten wrote: > Reading some of the comments, I sense there is still some discomfort > with the current version. Here's my attempt at slimming it down, i.e., > having less "editorialization" and trying to simply point to WGs and > existing RFCs. The overall message should be: "there is lots of > ongoing work, talk to us about specifics". IMO, the less we say the > better, since we don't want any "advice" to be taken as some sort of > "recommendation". I'd want more details about a specific > question/usage before doing that. Best to just point to the existing > work and encourage them to come to the IETF with specific > questions. Saying more now is in some sense trying to anticipate their > questions, which we probably can't reasonably do. > > > IETF / IAB response to ITU Q.9/13 questions on IPv6 development > > IETF response to ITU Q.9/13 questions on IPv6 development > > > Introduction > > > > > The IETF thanks the Q.9/13 for their liaison statement > > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file182.pdf) and > > interest on IPv6 issues related to NGN. We have reviewed the liaison > > statement with subject-matter experts and have prepared the response. > > We have aimed to provide an informative response for your guidance in > > further collaboration, and have endeavoured to be clear where works > > are in progress. We also appreciate your understanding that, > > while this is the collected advice from several experts, it is neither > > an IAB statement nor an official IETF consensus publication. > > The IETF thanks Q.9/13 for their liaison statement > (https://datatracker.ietf.org/documents/LIAISON/file182.pdf) and > interest on IPv6 issues related to NGN. We have reviewed the liaison > statement with IETF subject-matter experts and prepared the following > response. We have aimed to provide an informative response for your > guidance in further collaboration, and have endeavoured to be clear > where works are in progress. We also appreciate your > understanding that this is not a specific recommendation. It is a > general summary of the work the IETF has done and is currently > pursuing. The IETF appreciates the interest of Q.9/13 and the > continuing cooperation between ITU and the IETF. Please let us know > if there are further questions concerning IETF technical work, and we > would welcome the opportunity to direct your members to appropriate > IETF Working Groups to carry out the technical discussion more > directly. > > > Future IPv6development > > > > QoS signaling > > Add: > > IPv6 uses the same QoS signaling mechanisms as IPv4. These > include Integrated Services using RSVP and Differentiated > Services. > > > RSVP has seen some deployment, but are localized. There have been > > scalability issues with some aspects of RSVP and other QoS signaling > > protocols. See Analysis of Existing Quality-of-Service Signaling > > Protocols RFC 4094. RSVP supports IPv6. The major RSVP RFCs are: > > RSVP has seen some deployment, but those deployments are localized. > Some scalability issues with some aspects of RSVP and other QoS > signaling protocols have been identified. See Analysis of Existing > Quality-of-Service Signaling Protocols RFC 4094 or more > details. RSVP supports IPv6. The major RSVP RFCs are: > > > RSVP Version 1 Applicability - RFC 2208 > > RSVP Version 1 Message Processing Rules - RFC 2209 > > RSVP Operation Over IP Tunnels - RFC 2746 > > RSVP Cryptographic Authentication - RFC 2747 > > RSVP Refresh Overhead Reduction Extensions - RFC 2961 > > RSVP Cryptographic Authentication-New Message Type - RFC 3097 > > Format of the RSVP DCLASS Object - RFC 2996 > > Specification of the Null Service Type - RFC 2997 > > A Framework For IntServ Operation Over Diffserv Networks - RFC 2998 > > RSVP Reservations Aggregation - RFC 3175 > > > > The Next Steps in Signaling Working Group has been chartered to work > > on the next steps for Internet signaling, including QoS signaling. > > NSIS has defined a signaling framework, detailed in Next Steps in > > Signaling (NSIS): Framework (RFC 4080). This proposes a two-layer > > architecture consisting of a transport protocol and signaling > > application. The transport protocol is GIST (General Internet > > Signaling Transport) - > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-nsis-ntlp-08.txt. GIST > > supports both IPv4 and IPv6. > > The Next Steps in Signaling (NSIS) Working Group has been chartered to > work on the next steps for Internet signaling, including QoS > signaling. NSIS has defined a signaling framework, detailed in "Next > Steps in Signaling (NSIS): Framework" (RFC 4080). It proposes a > two-layer architecture consisting of a transport protocol and > signaling application. Relevant documents are under active development > in the NSIS WG. Some of the key documents under development: > > "GIST: General Internet Signaling Transport" (draft-ietf-nsis-ntlp) > > "NSLP for Quality-of-Service signalling" (draft-ietf-nsis-qos-nslp) > > "QoS-NSLP QSPEC Template" (draft-ietf-nsis-qspec) > > "Y.1541-QOSM -- Y.1541 QoS Model for Networks Using Y.1541 QoS > Classes" (draft-ietf-nsis-y1541-qosm) > > > There is on-going work on IPv6 transition issues for SIP, see: IPv6 > > Transition in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) - > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-sipping-v6-transition-01.txt. > > moved to later in document... > > > QoS signaling interworking, IPv4<->IPv6 > > > > RFC 4080 defines a layered, modular architecture to support different > > network deployments. Since GIST works in a hop-by-hop manner, it is > > possible to chain transport connections and between IPv4 and IPv6 > > networks, without significant impact to the QoS Signaling application. > > There is on-going work to study how this signaling will work over > > different tunneling mechanisms, such as IP transition mechanisms. > > See: NSIS Operation Over IP Tunnels - > > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-shen-nsis-tunnel-01.txt > > I don't know what to say above, but the above draft does not appear to > be a WG document. I don't think it is appropriate for us to reference > the document given its non-IETF status. > > But I agree with Bob that something like the following should go here: > > The IETF has not planned on direct translation between IPv4 and > IPv6. As a consequence there hasn't not been any work on mapping > IPv6 and IPv4 QOS. Generally the IETF focuses on Internetworking, > not Interworking. > > > IPv4 / IPv6 interaction and transition > > > > > > The interaction of IPv4 and IPv6 is closely related to the IETF work > > on transition mechanisms. The normal IETF approach is to use one, or > > the other as the transport mechanism for bridging native connectivity > > islands of the other. This is done by of a number of encapsulation or > > tunneling technologies defined by the IETF. The main exception is the > > use of application layer gateways, or ALG. These works as proxies, > > handling translation of protocols transported over one IP version to > > be transported by another. These ALGs work on a per protocol, and > > while deployed and in use, are not common. > > Suggest simply saying: > > The IETF has done much work on IPv4/IPv6 interaction and > transition. In particular, see both the output and on-going work of > the IPv6 Operations (v6ops) Working Group. In particular, the IETF has > focussed on a "dual-stack" mode of operations, as documented in RFC > 4313. > > There is also on-going work on IPv6 transition issues for SIP, see: > IPv6 Transition in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) > (draft-ietf-sipping-v6-transition). > > > IPv6 flow label > > > > The IPv6 flow label is described in RFC 3697. In IPv4, a flow of IP > > packets are traditionally defined as the tuple (source IP, destination > > IP, source port, destination port, transport protocol type). For a > > number or reasons, this is not a viable approach in IPv6, among others > > as the protocol type is encoded in the nested next-header value, which > > would require a deep packet inspection in worst case. Some of the > > values might also not be available in a packet due to fragmentation or > > encryption. Therefore in IPv6, a flow is identified by the source > > address, destination address and the flow-label field in the IPv6 > > packet header. > > The IPv6 flow label is defined in RFC 3697. In IPv4, a flow of IP > packets are traditionally defined as the tuple (source IP, destination > IP, source port, destination port, transport protocol type). For a > number or reasons, this approach is less viable in IPv6. For example, > the protocol type is encoded in the nested next-header value, which > would require a deep packet inspection in worst case. Some of the > values might also not be available in a packet due to fragmentation or > IPsec encryption. Therefore in IPv6, the flow label field is used to > identify flows. RFC3697 specifies that an IPv6 flow is identified by > the source address, destination address, and the flow-label field. > The flow label is required to be preserved end-to-end. > > > The IPv6 flow label identifier is a 20-bit field in the IPv6 header. A > > value of zero indicates that no flow id is set and no assumption on > > the packets being part of a flow can be made. Further, nodes must not > > assume that there is a semantic meaning of the flow label field. This > > has had relevance in several IETF Working groups and related work, > > where the possibility of using the Flow label field is considered for > > overloading the semantics for other work. This has most of the time > > been an artifact of work that would have benefited from a field of its > > own in the IPv6 header. This has so far been deemed incompatible with > > the definition of the flow label field. > > I'd suggest dropping the above, as it doesn't add anything beyond the > existing RFCs. > > > Last its worth noticing that RFC 3697 does not make any assumptions > > on how flows are processed or used. It also make the assumption that > > flows will be labeled based on a host decision, but it does not say > > anything on how these decisions are made or what they are based on, > > other than noticing that future work could include a flow-label > > signaling protocol. > > > > There is currently work under way in the IETF that looks at using the > > flow-label field for its originally intended value, such as the > > work in the NSIS WG. > > Do we have an ID to cite? and is it an official WG document? If not, > we probably should just drop the above paragraphs. > > > Multihoming with IPv6 > > > > Multihoming in IPv6 has been the focus for a lot of work both inside > > the IETF and in the operational community involved at each of the > > Regional Internet Registries, the RIRs (AfriNIC, RIPE, APNIC, L ACNIC, > > and ARIN). Today address blocks of /32 in size are used as the initial > > allocation standard by the RIRs, unless explicit need for larger > > blocks in the near future can be proved. Then larger initial > > allocation blocks have been used in order to preserve aggregation and > > limit the impact on global routing table growth. The criteria for > > receiving an initial allocation from the RIRS, commonly used today is, > > that an organization is a member of a RIR and can present plans for > > 200 allocations to third parties within two years. For organizations > > not meeting these criteria, it is assumed that they can get address > > blocks allocated from their providers that should meet the previous > > criteria. All along it has been known that end-site organizations > > might have a need for multiple providers and a seamless transition is > > use of service between the two. For this reason the IETF early created > > the multi6 working group in the operations area. Multi6 was tasked > > with defining the operational needs of a multihoming solution. Those > > are summarized in the RFC 3582, Goals for IPv6 Site-Multihoming > > Architectures. The multi6 working group concluded with an > > architectural analysis of the available options and their > > trade-offs. These are described in RFC 4177, Architectural > > Approaches to Multi-homing for IPv6. The conclusion was that the > > IETF should work on a mechanism that allowed a host with multiple IPv6 > > addresses from multiple providers, to transition the use of source and > > destination IPs, without breaking transport layer state. This is > > achieved by the use of what is commonly called the identifier locator > > split and the insertion of a shim layer between the upper layer > > protocols and the IP layer. This work is carried out in a new working > > group called shim6. > > Multihoming in IPv6 has been the focus for a lot of discussion both > inside the IETF, within the operational community, and at the Regional > Internet Registries (RIRs). Unlike with IPv4, current IPv6 RIR address > allocation policies make it very difficult for end sites to obtain > direct address assignments from an RIR. Instead, end sites are > expected to get addresses from service providers. All along it has > been known that end-sites have a need for multihoming services. For > this reason the IETF created the Site Multihoming in IPv6 (multi6) > Working Group. Multi6 was tasked with defining the operational needs > of a multihoming solution. Those resuls are summarized in the RFC > 3582, Goals for IPv6 Site-Multihoming Architectures. The multi6 > Working Group concluded with an architectural analysis of the > available options and their trade-offs. These are described in RFC > 4177, Architectural Approaches to Multi-homing for IPv6. The > conclusion of the WG was that the IETF should work on a mechanism that > allowed a host with multiple IPv6 addresses from multiple providers, > to transition the use of source and destination IPs, without breaking > transport layer state. This work is currently being carried out in > Site Multihoming by IPv6 Intermediation (shim6) Working Group. > > > In addition to this effort, other technologies in the IETF support > > some form of multihoming, most notably HIP, which is an experimental > > protocol with many similarities to shim6, and SCTP. The reason SCTP > > was not chosen as a generic approach to multihoming was that it > > assumes SCTP as the transport layer protocol. > > Drop the above. > > > Mobility. > > > > The IPv6 mobility model, Mobile Support in IPv6 aka Mobile IPv6, has > > been adopted from the IPv4 version Mobile IP, with some modifications > > and extensions. Especially the security model for route optimisation > > is different. Mobile IPv6 is documented in RFC 3775 and RFC 3776, > > with an optional extension in RFC 4283. RFC 4225 explains the > > rational and design behind the route optimisation security model, and > > its limitations. > > I'm not sure I understand why Mobility is being called out for > discussion. Is this a "NGN" topic? Mobility is _NOT_ what I normally > think of as "network infrastructure". Its largely an e2e approach > involving end nodes (mobile & correspondant nodes) and servers (Home > Agents). It is built on top of a network, it is not part of the "core" > network itself. Also, there are a lot of IETF WGs that are doing IPv6 > work that might be related. E.g., autoconf/manet. Do we mention them > all? What is the criteria for deciding what to mention and what not? > > Also, the above isn't entirely accurate. For example, there is no > route optimization in MIPv4, so it doesn't make sense to say > "especially the security model for route optimization is different". > > > Basic support for Mobile subnetworks is defined in RFC 3963. The > > approach taken is an extension to Mobile IPv6, and does not > > necessarily scale to all network environments. An alternative > > approach, based on creative application of the routing protocol > > standards, is implemented in the commercial Boeing Connexion > > service. > > Last sentence should not be here at all. > > > The IETF is currently considering extensions and, in the longer term, > > potential alternatives, to Mobile IPv6. Issues being addressed > > include mobility between IPv4 and IPv6, combined mobility and > > multi-homing, security issues related to mobility, and deeper > > architectural problems related to the possible need of revising the > > architecture along the so called identifier/locator split > > suggestion. > > This is too abstract/high-level for what we should be commmunicating > to ITU-T. > > > Extensions, optimisations, and options to Mobile IPv6 are being > > studied in the MIP6, MIPSHOP, and MONAMI6 working groups. The NEMO > > working group continues to work on subnetwork mobility. > > > > Potential alternatives to Mobile IPv6, currently applicable at most in > > certain restricted environments, include Mobility support for IPsec, > > being studied at the MOBIKE WG, proposed extensions for transport > > layer mobility (including extensions to SCTP and DCCP), and proposed > > extensions to IPv6 multi-homing (SHIM6) functionality. Along even > > more research-oriented lines, the HIP working and research groups are > > studying combined mobility and multi-homing in an environment where > > the so called identifier/locator split is implemented in a certain > > way. However, at this time it is not clear whether the HIP approach > > is viable in the first place or not, due to problems related to > > distributed identifier/locator mapping and the required > > infrastructure. > > IMO, this entire section seems vague and I'm not really sure what it > is trying to say (in the context of a clear message to ITU-T). I'd > suggest dropping completely. > > Or, just a short paragraph pointing the (large number of) WGs in this > space. > > > MPLS and IPv6. > > > > The relationship between MPLS and IPv6 is basically orthogonal, > > i.e. MPLS work equally well with IPv6 and IPv4. Some IPv6 specific > > issues are addressed in RFC3032 MPLS Label Stack Encoding. This > > has to do with encapsulating IPv6 in MPLS in specific cases, e.g. when > > an IPv6 packet is too large or an explicit NULL encapsulation is > > needed. > > > > The LDP specification (RFC3036) and the RSVP-TE specification > > (RFC3209) describe how to encode IPv6 specific information when > > establishing signaling sessions and setting up LSPs. > > > > If ITU-T SG13 is aware of other MPLS related IPv6 issues we are > > prepared to participate in resolving those, please send them in > > liaison statements to the MPLS Working group and the IPv6 directorate > > jointly. > > Drop the reference to the directorate. they should engage the WG directly. > > > We are not aware of MPLS implementations for IPv6 networks, but will > > solicit this information and notify the ITU-T SG13 of the result when > > available. > > Do we need the above? If so, shouldn't we say the same for other areas > (like mobility)? And has ITU-T specifically requested such > information? If not, why are we volunteering? > > > The IETF appreciates the interest of Q.9/13 and the continuing > > cooperation between ITU and the IETF. Please let us know if there are > > further questions concerning IETF technical work, and we would welcome > > the opportunity to direct your members to appropriate IETF Working > > Groups to carry out the technical discussion more directly. > > The IETF appreciates the interest of Q.9/13 and the continuing > cooperation between ITU and the IETF. It should be noted that the > contents of this statement are of a very general nature. Please let > us know if there are additional more specific questions concerning > IETF technical work or its applicability to particular environments. > In particular, we would welcome the opportunity to direct your members > to appropriate IETF Working Groups to carry out the technical > discussion directly with subject matter experts. > > Thomas > > _______________________________________________ > ipv6-dir mailing list > ipv6-dir@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-dir _______________________________________________ ipv6-dir mailing list ipv6-dir@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6-dir
- RE: IAB last call... Re: [ipv6-dir] Re: Updated d… Margaret Wasserman
- Re: IAB last call... Re: [ipv6-dir] Re: Updated d… Leslie Daigle
- Re: IAB last call... Re: [ipv6-dir] Re: Updated d… Thomas Narten
- Re: IAB last call... Re: [ipv6-dir] Re: Updated d… Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Espoo)
- Re: IAB last call... Re: [ipv6-dir] Re: Updated d… Scott W Brim
- Re: IAB last call... Re: [ipv6-dir] Re: Updated d… Thomas Narten
- RE: IAB last call... Re: [ipv6-dir] Re: Updated d… Margaret Wasserman
- Re: IAB last call... Re: [ipv6-dir] Re: Updated d… Scott W Brim
- Re: IAB last call... Re: [ipv6-dir] Re: Updated d… Scott W Brim
- Re: IAB last call... Re: [ipv6-dir] Re: Updated d… Allison Mankin
- Re: IAB last call... Re: [ipv6-dir] Re: Updated d… Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Espoo)
- RE: IAB last call... Re: [ipv6-dir] Re: Updated d… john.loughney
- Re: IAB last call... Re: [ipv6-dir] Re: Updated d… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IAB last call... Re: [ipv6-dir] Re: Updated d… Scott W Brim
- Re: IAB last call... Re: [ipv6-dir] Re: Updated d… Kurt Erik Lindqvist
- RE: IAB last call... Re: [ipv6-dir] Re: Updated d… john.loughney
- Re: IAB last call... Re: [ipv6-dir] Re: Updated d… Scott W Brim
- Re: IAB last call... Re: [ipv6-dir] Re: Updated d… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IAB last call... Re: [ipv6-dir] Re: Updated d… Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Espoo)
- Re: IAB last call... Re: [ipv6-dir] Re: Updated d… Scott W Brim
- Re: IAB last call... Re: [ipv6-dir] Re: Updated d… Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Espoo)