Re: [IPv6] Adoption call for draft-bctb-6man-rfc6296-bis

[Tim Chown <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I agree with what Brian writes below.  I would be keen to see the Informational option discussed, though I recognise that even as an Experimental document many people/vendors/operators still just see the RFC number, take it as IETF blessed and implement it anyway.  

I also agree with those who have said or hinted that at least advancing this document away from Experimental, while refining it further, should help contain address translation to the least bad option, so we don’t see a repeat of the stateful v4-like NATs and NAT variants and all the joy that brought.

I appreciate this is only an adoption call, and we will discuss details later, but I’d also add here:

a) In 4.1 it says prefixes to be translated "be valid IPv6 unicast prefixes as described in [RFC4291].  They MAY also support random generation of ULA addresses on command.”  This is explicitly proposing ULAs for NPTv6. What this does remind me though is that RFC 4291 mentions site locals as being deprecated, but has no linkage via an Updated by or otherwise to RFC 4193 - which effectively replaced site-locals - maybe it should.

b) Sections 5.2 and 5.3 are very hand-wavy about things that could be done to minimise NPT harm, but these are not yet, as far as I’m aware, available for IPv6.  I think these sections, in particular 5.2, need to be much firmer, and based on tangible tools.

Tim

> On 13 Mar 2024, at 19:28, Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I still do not agree that this should be on the standards track,
> for reasons already discussed. I do support adoption, but only
> if the standards vs Informational issue is open for debate.
> 
> The document still needs quite a bit of work after adoption, e.g.
> 
> - The document title needs fixing.
> 
> - Since this would obsolete an experimental RFC, there should be
> a short appendix reporting experience during the experiment.
> 
> - I'm also not happy with the applicability section, as per
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/y63DxV9a3FKru55mqWdN4xSHLpY/
> 
> Regards
>   Brian Carpenter
> 
> On 14-Mar-24 04:19, Bob Hinden wrote:
>> Correction:  The adoption call ends on Wednesday, 27 March 2024, 23:59 UTC.
>> Bob
>>> On Mar 13, 2024, at 8:11 AM, Bob Hinden <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> This email starts an adoption call for the following document:
>>> 
>>> Title: RFC 6296bis IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix Translation
>>> Draft name: draft-bctb-6man-rfc6296-bis
>>> Link:  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bctb-6man-rfc6296-bis/
>>> 
>>> Substantive comments and statements of support for adopting this
>>> document should be sent to the mailing list. Editorial suggestions can
>>> be sent to the authors.
>>> 
>>> The adoption call ends on Monday, 13 March 2024, 23:59 UTC.
>>> 
>>> Bob and Jen
>>> 
>>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------