updated address selection draft

Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Tue, 21 July 2009 15:43 UTC

Return-Path: <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
X-Original-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0439C3A6C6C for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:43:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.752
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.752 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.282, BAYES_00=-2.599, DNS_FROM_OPENWHOIS=1.13]
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 iUT9QD8cnR0o for <ipv6@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:43:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [152.78.68.146]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E00F628C314 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost.ecs.soton.ac.uk [127.0.0.1]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n6LFg3Bp031651 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:42:03 +0100
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk n6LFg3Bp031651
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=ecs.soton.ac.uk; s=200903; t=1248190924; bh=y8Ke5/ZOyXhe/nDD2PwPVlw99Gw=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Mime-Version:References; b=BSaxBGKJIIC4zxvdw0vcf84tDMwF7ayiYmq6b4pyLdJoFYU6v/ZEnZ6sUbL2ArwE9 0R2rl4oVsvdpTJEHY6wxGt+cuJBqJ6VCYmdvZN5Zoic6dJMnNlCI6KY7XHapCASXBi A8sE3EUznuR5BHqPRWqqnYrZUSRAujFZmpM+Sucw=
Received: from gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk ([2001:630:d0:f102:21d:9ff:fe22:9fc]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102:21e:c9ff:fe2e:e915]) envelope-from <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> with ESMTP id l6KGg30448552080Iy ret-id none; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:42:03 +0100
Received: from login.ecs.soton.ac.uk (login.ecs.soton.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102:230:48ff:fe59:5f12]) by gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n6LFfp0l024793 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:41:51 +0100
Received: from login.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by login.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.11.6) with ESMTP id n6LFfpMC007042 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:41:51 +0100
Received: (from tjc@localhost) by login.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id n6LFfp8x007041 for ipv6@ietf.org; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:41:51 +0100
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:41:51 +0100
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: updated address selection draft
Message-ID: <EMEW3|f94beea350ea0d0515f96a7783fa6bb6l6KGg303tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4151.GW24319@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Mail-Followup-To: ipv6@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: client=relay,forged,no_ptr,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=
References: <20090721154151.GW24319@login.ecs.soton.ac.uk>
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: n6LFg3Bp031651
X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 15:43:18 -0000

Hi,

I have compiled feedback into a revised draft available at:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chown-addr-select-considerations-03
 
These address comments on list, from Thomas and Dave, and include
reference to new drafts.   I believe the 6man chairs indicated
this could be a WG item, though I don't believe a list 'vote' was
called.   But this could be agreed in Stockholm.

General change notes:

- added reference to draft-denis-v6ops-nat-addrsel-00

- added reference to draft-arifumi-6man-addr-select-conflict-00

- noted that differing administrative domains are in scope (Thomas)

- noted that multiple interfaces are in scope (Thomas)

- noted node-wide problem is destination address selection (Dave)

- noted the two common multiple interface cases (wired/air, normal/VPN)

- noted any 3484 update has two elements: policy table and algorithms

- noted that many OSes already have implemented modified 3484 policy
  so we could use an improved 3484 'default' asap

- noted updates to policy not rapid unless node is in a site doing
  rapid traffic engineering changes or where nodes are heavily mobile
  between parts of the network with different policy (and thus actually
  frequency of 3484 update not really that different to general
  configuration data update, usually via dhcp)

- noted managed (dhcpv6) networks tend to have managed policy
  (thus dhcpv6 option may be appropriate there)

- noted unmanaged networks probably don't have a policy table available,
  so should explore routing hints etc there?

The draft is on the agenda for the 6man session in Stockholm.

Obviously feedback is welcome at any time.

Tim