(ngtrans) Redmond interim ngtrans minutes
Bob Fink <fink@es.net> Sat, 09 June 2001 21:40 UTC
Received: from mercury.Sun.COM (mercury.Sun.COM [192.9.25.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id RAA19410 for <ngtrans-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 17:40:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from engmail2.Eng.Sun.COM ([129.146.1.25]) by mercury.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA15554; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 14:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sunroof.eng.sun.com (sunroof.Eng.Sun.COM [129.146.168.88]) by engmail2.Eng.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id OAA25588; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 14:40:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by sunroof.eng.sun.com (8.11.4+Sun/8.11.4) id f59Le2007940 for ngtrans-dist; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 14:40:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from engmail1.Eng.Sun.COM (engmail1 [129.146.1.13]) by sunroof.eng.sun.com (8.11.4+Sun/8.11.4) with ESMTP id f59Ldxe07933 for <ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com>; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 14:39:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from patan.sun.com (patan.Central.Sun.COM [129.147.5.43]) by engmail1.Eng.Sun.COM (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/ENSMAIL, v2.1p1) with ESMTP id OAA11285 for <ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com>; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 14:40:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from listserv1.es.net (mail1.es.net [198.128.3.181]) by patan.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with SMTP id PAA13780 for <ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com>; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 15:40:05 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from (pinnacle.lbl.gov) [63.196.96.113] by listserv1.es.net with esmtp (Exim 1.81 #2) id 158qSa-0006jS-00; Sat, 9 Jun 2001 14:39:56 -0700
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20010601095234.0238b758@imap2.es.net>
X-Sender: rlfink@imap2.es.net
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 14:39:28 -0700
To: NGtrans List <ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com>
From: Bob Fink <fink@es.net>
Subject: (ngtrans) Redmond interim ngtrans minutes
Cc: Alain Durand <Alain.Durand@sun.com>, Tony Hain <tony@tndh.net>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, Bert Wijnen <bwijnen@lucent.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Sender: owner-ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Bob Fink <fink@es.net>
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mercury.Sun.COM id OAA15554
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by ietf.org id RAA19410
NGtrans folk, Here are the minutes of the Redmond interim ngtrans meeting. Please send me any corrections and additions. Thanks, Bob ============================= Minutes of Interim NGtrans WG Meeting 1 June 2001 Redmond, WA ======= Chairs: Alain Durand <Alain.Durand@eng.sun.com> Bob Fink <fink@es.net> Tony Hain <tonyhain@microsoft.com> This ngtrans meeting reported by Bob Fink. Attendance was ~80. Alain Durand & Tony Hain chaired the meeting. =========================== Administrative information: Discussion ngtrans: <mailto: ngtrans@sunroof.eng.sun.com> Subscribe ngtrans: <mailto: majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com> "subscribe ngtrans" Archive ngtrans: <http://www.wcug.wwu.edu/lists/ngtrans/> Web site: <http://www.6bone.net/ngtrans> Discussion 6bone: <mailto: 6bone@isi.edu> Subscribe 6bone: <mailto: majordomo@isi.edu> "subscribe 6bone" Archive 6bone: <http://www.wcug.wwu.edu/lists/6bone/> Web site: <http://www.6bone.net> ====================== Agenda: ---------------------- ISATAP - Intra-site tunneling / Alain Durand & Fred Templin <draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap-01.txt> Matrix of transition mechanisms / Alain Durand & Alain Baudot <draft-krampell-v6transition-interaction-00.txt> IPv4 Compatibility Address Deprecation / chairs & others ============================================================================= ISATAP - Intra-site tunneling / Alain Durand & Fred Templin <draft-ietf-ngtrans-isatap-01.txt> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alain Durand presented his issues for ISATAP: List of issues: -sending rules? -how to deprecate ISATAP when v6 native is available? -gateway discovery (e.g., anycast or DNS based) -is one prefix per site enough? -if yes, should we reserve a well known prefix? -if we do that, do we keep EUI-64 format? Sending rules: First case: 2 ISATAP nodes separated by a router, each has native v6 as well. Source address election longest prefix match will choose ISATAP not native path. Fred responded that the draft will say that when native comes up that forming new sessions won't use ISATAP. Alain said it isn't just hosts, but all nodes. Christian Huitema said one should pick source addresses first, then the destination. Thus the issue is the destination ordering. Rich Draves noted this is not specific to isatap, e.g., 6to4 has similar issue. Erik Nordmark asked do we care about what addresses are or that tunnelling occurs. In destination ordering take into account property of interface so tunnels have a lower priority out of the box. Second case: both isatap nodes on same subnet, and same match will cause isatap use. Christian said it a source address selection issue with other interface types as well, e.g., Ethernet. Not an issue with ISATAP. Jim Bound asked if isatap isn't just a different native address. Alain asked if we unnecessarily tunnel? Dave Thaler, if you treat this as destination address selection, node A is native only so router encapsulates. Rich Draves noted that you don't know if there is tunnelling along the path, so you can fix the easy example 1 above, but not other configurations. Fred asked if we really should take isatap down or not when native links become available. Tony Hain said why push the tunnelling to the router when the link could continue to configure isatap. Brian Zill said the problem then is how does isatap go away. Christian noted that if destination selection selects isatap, then the source choosing isatap sourced is ok to have end to end tunnelling. Rich Draves said that he is leaning to the interface choice method to deal with this. Christian does not think we should address these problems by making the source selection draft more complex. Several felt that not trying to change the selection rules. Erik felt that policy configuration not optimal. Deprecating isatap: Any isatap node that is not an isatap gateway should deprecate isatap. Fred Templin then presented changes made to ISATAP since Minneapolis. He also noted the name had changed. <http://www.6bone.net/ngtrans/IETF-50-Redmond-Interim/Baudot-matrix.ppt> Requires isatap addresses to use different 64 bit prefixes and thus eliminates the sending rules. Also changed the EUI-64 interface id to local scope. Jim Bound asked what now identifies this as an isatap address. Fred noted that it is now administrative, so they might differ by SLA, nothing else. Jim then responded that it should be then just treated as a native address, if it works. Fred doesn't think it is just an issue of endpoints being tunnelled as intervening points may exist that are tunnelled. Tony responded that those are hidden, what matters is when sharing the same prefix on the same wire. Fred gave an overview of isatap, then covered the old method of forming as EUI (i.e., the IANA OUI approach), how it is formed, and that now it is local. This eliminated special sending rules, address selection considerations, special encoding, thus SHOULD use a common interface ID encoding for sanity checking (but not required). Brian Zill noted that having it encoded makes it easy to identify externally, e.g., for screen viewing or printing. Dave thinks we MUST do it to make debugging easy. Alain Durand wanted the new token to be zero, but Dave Thaler disagreed as it might occur commonly. Fred suggested recommended either 0000:0000:vraddr or 0000:FFFF:v4addr. Dave Thaler didn't like as it is similar to a PPP link. He still wants the 5FFE style, i.e., what it says now. Christian Huitema felt that what code doesn't matter. Alain asked opinions of several choices: plain 0000 - no votes; FFFF version - no votes; FFFFFFFE - no votes, IANA style, several folk. Automatic gateway discovery: Option 1: Attempt RFC 2462 stateless auto-configuration (Keep trying periodically) Option 2: Attempt off-link IPv6 gateway discovery as follows: 1. Discover ISATAP IPv4 anycast address (ISATAP_ANY) for site. (Could be IANA reserved; could be site-specific.) 2. Send tunneled Rtsol using node's IPv4 addr (V4ADDR) to ISATAP_ANY: ipv6_src: FE80::V4ADDR ipv6_dst: FF02::2 (All Routers Multicast) ipv4_src: V4ADDR ipv4_dst: ISATAP_ANY 3. Receive tunneled Rtadv from an ISATAP Router (ISATAP-RTR): ipv6_src: FE80::ISATAP_RTR ipv6_dst: FE80::V4ADDR ipv4_src: ISATAPGW ipv4_dst: V4ADDR 4. Construct fully-qualified ISATAP Address; default6 route to FE80::ISATAP_RTR 5. Repeat steps 1 thru 4 periodically: . automatically renumber if any changes occur. . Discontinue use of ISATAP address and revert to option 1 *immediately* if native Rtadv's arrive Brian Zill then mentioned the idea of having the anycast server having administrative policy in them to supply the correct router. Christian Huitema noted that anycast works as all of anycast routers should act the same. Alain Durand asked if the dns solution better than anycast. Christian liked it as it is easier to administer and requires no special configuration of router. Steve asked if you can inject a host route into it. Dave Thaler noted that when router is not reachable on first RS, so after this (3 times), then host never gets isatap without Fred's last step (5.). Fred then discussed isatap interactions with NAT. Case 0: Unmodified NAT boxes ISATAP tunneled Rtsol's will not be forwarded ISATAP hosts will not reach an ISATAP router Case 1: NAT box as ISATAP Transparent Proxy: Host 'A' behind route sends Rtsol to ISATAP_ANY NAT 'B' intercepts Rtsol; REMEMBERS 'A'; sends Rtsol to ISATAP_ANY ISATAP_RTR 'C' sends Rtadv to 'B' Host 'A' behind route sends Rtsol to ISATAP_ANY NAT 'B' intercepts Rtsol; REMEMBERS 'A'; sends Rtsol to ISATAP_ANY ISATAP_RTR 'C' sends Rtadv to 'B' NAT 'B' sends Rtadv to 'A' For any V6-in-V4 TCP/UDP. 'B' translates V4ADDR in BOTH IPv4 and IPv6 hdr's Several folk commented that they don't want ISATAP to cross a NAT as it increases failure modes. Fred will do another draft to accommodate items from this discussion. ============================================================================= Matrix of transition mechanisms / Alain Durand & Alain Baudot <draft-krampell-v6transition-interaction-00.txt> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alain Baudot presented his current view on how to do the matrix of transition mechanisms: <http://www.6bone.net/ngtrans/IETF-50-Redmond-Interim/Templin-isatap.ppt> draft-krampell-v6transition-interaction-00.txt was based on combination of 8 transition mechanisms => 8 x 8 = 64 cases. However, new transition mechanisms have been defined! Up to 16 mechanisms are defined or under definition. Combining all mechanisms with each other results in 256 cases! Each mechanism solves a particular transition issue it is unlikely that we will reduce the number of mechanisms. Need to find a new approach reducing the number of cases to check. Mechanism approach : stack, translation, tunneling Scope approach : host, site, global Stack mechanisms Dual Stack: Host BIS: Host BIA: Host Translation mechanisms Socks: site SIIT: site NAT-PT: site TRT: site Proxy: site Tunneling mechanisms Configured tunnel: Host x Host Automatic tunnel: Host x Host + Global Tunnel broker: Host x Host + Global 6to4: Site x Site + Global 6over4: Host x Host + Site DSTM: Host x Host + Site The general mechanism approach resulted in 94 cases to evaluate. This is an exhaustive end-end approach. The scope approach resulted in 59 cases to evaluate. Host scope : enables the communication of a single host (8 mechanisms) Site scope : enables a whole site communication without effect on the Internet (8 mechanisms) Global scope : enables host or site communication with effect on the Internet (3 mechanisms) Local or parallel approach, not end-to-end Assumes that there are no interaction issues outside a scope It was viewed that the mechanism approach was too exhaustive and that a scope-based approach was more relevant. It would be a local approach, not end-to-end. Alain Baudot noted that the authors were working together with the authors of draft-ngtrans-introduction-to-ipv6-transition-0x.txt on this project. Steve Deering asked what the end goal was, once the method was resolved. Jim Bound also asked what the objective was. Informational? Alain Durand stated that Informational was it's goal. Alain Durand suggested that he proceed and present what he has. ============================================================================= IPv4 Compatibility Address Deprecation The issue of what to do with IPv4 Compatibility Addresses was raised. Several folk commented. There seemed to be a general consensus that the usefulness of this format had come to an end. Bob Hinden stated that he didn't believe that a change to the address architecture was appropriate, rather a change in specs that use them. Tony Hain noted that the transition mechanism specification may eliminate it. It was noted that BGP-TUNNEL uses it, but there was agreement of several folk and at least one of its authors that this should and could be changed. ================== Meeting adjourned. ================== -end