[Softwires] Softwires WG meeting Notes
"Durand, Alain" <Alain_Durand@cable.comcast.com> Mon, 24 August 2009 17:06 UTC
Return-Path: <alain_durand@cable.comcast.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FA003A68BA for <softwires@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:06:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.916
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.916 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=3.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 icy9L3mp9M-X for <softwires@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:06:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com (PacdcIMO01.cable.comcast.com [24.40.8.145]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 111873A68DD for <softwires@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:06:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([10.52.116.30]) by pacdcimo01.cable.comcast.com with ESMTP id 5503620.50878826; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:06:19 -0400
Received: from PACORPEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com ([24.40.15.117]) by PAOAKEXCSMTP01.cable.comcast.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:06:19 -0400
Received: from 10.17.2.167 ([10.17.2.167]) by PACORPEXCMB04.cable.comcast.com ([24.40.15.117]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:06:19 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.20.0.090605
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:06:16 -0400
From: "Durand, Alain" <Alain_Durand@cable.comcast.com>
To: softwires@ietf.org
Message-ID: <C6B840C8.240AC%Alain_Durand@cable.comcast.com>
Thread-Topic: Softwires WG meeting Notes
Thread-Index: AcoQVFHvw7TVN53CQXmcpMe0EqjYBgUiN7z9
In-Reply-To: <EAE1CBBD071180449FC50C37CFC7839408382641@xmb-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="B_3333963976_1064093"
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Aug 2009 17:06:19.0560 (UTC) FILETIME=[3301AA80:01CA24DD]
Subject: [Softwires] Softwires WG meeting Notes
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/softwires>
List-Post: <mailto:softwires@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:06:30 -0000
Here is a preview of the meeting minutes, please send any update/change to me asap before I sent this to the secretariat. - Alain. ------ Forwarded Message From: "Chris Metz (chmetz)" <chmetz@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 09:56:07 -0400 To: Alain Durand <Alain_Durand@cable.comcast.com>, David Ward <dward@cisco.com> Subject: Softwires WG meeting Notes Softwires WG Meeting IETF75, Stockholm July 29, 2009 Chairs: David Ward, Alain Durand Minutes Follow Chairs opened with Introduction, a small agenda-reorder action and the ³note-well. David remarked that Softwires Mesh is RFC5565. draft-cui-softwire-va-based-softwire-00 Yong Cui - Discussed main points of draft. E-IP prefixes aggregated into Virtual Prefixes (VP) and stored in core APR routers. Softwire tunnels established between edge routers and APR routers. Primary objective is shrink FIB size on AFBR routers - Send comments to mailing list draft-cui-softwire-pet-00 - Yong Cui - IPv4/IPv6 Coexistence Framework Prefixing/Encap/Translation (PET)PET Framework Draft - Issue: many tunneling and translation methods for IPv6 transition. Lots of boxes in network capable of doing both - Question: Do we need methods for transition boxes to negotiate and signal their preferred transition capabilities amongst one another versus the alternative of operator doing it manually - Showed example of a Core AFT (address family translator) and then an Edge AFT reached across the core by a tunnel. Which is better? - Outlined PET framework - Showed table of different permutations with IPv6-only backbone - Send comments to mailing list - Alain: Discuss with behave chairs Draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite-01 - Yui Lee - Summarized 00 01 diffs - Port Allocation automatic or static (a+p with user-controlled alg, dynamic) or dynamic port reservation - Port Assignment automatic, static via web interface, UPnP/nat-pmp dynamic port reservation - Discussed automatic method where CGN allocates - Discussed static port reservation method the 2 methods outlined in the draft - Discussed dynamic port reservation (application driven) nat-pmp is better than upnp because it says ³port X not avialble try port Y instead², upnp expected to enhance function, also need to increase timeout so more time to get address from upstream CGN - Discussed MTU issue - CGN must wait for privateàpublic ds-lite fragments to arrive, buffer and then send most packets sent from Internet where CGN forwards immediately rather than waiting - Suggest relaxation of RFC2473 and fragment packet even though df bit set? If pMTU is broken - CGN security 2 layers of acl ipv6 outer and IPv4 (private, iana- a+p) inner - CGN security web sites penalize after unsuccessful logon attempts, - Fred Templin comment: look at SEAL (RFC5520) to do frag/reassbl below IPv6 working on draft-SEAL-bis draft - Dan Wing: BEHAVE discussed CGN issues these are specific to all NATs, not just CGN found in ds-lite, recommend to discuss in ALAIN - Alain: IESG encouraged us to include CGN discussion in this draft - Magnus: Fragmentation at one or both ends is problematic - Fred: Check out SEAL for recommendation on how to handle fragmentation/reassembly - Dave Thaler: 1) need informative reference to NAT security or just address sharing 2) delete suggestion of MSS messing, alternative is to explain issue with e2e security, not just specific tcp-ao - Anonymous: Layer violations and bizarness with changing TCP in layer above IP - Fred: SEAL is a shim - Alain: Question on whether to remove fragmentation/mss discussion from document or keep it - Dward: remove it draft-townsley-ipv6-6rd-01 - Mark Townsley - One slide rollup - 6rd Prefix Delegation - IPv4 bits in 6rd IPv6 can be private use only 24 bits and includes domain id if 1918 is overlapped - 6rd RG implementation discussed and then showed encap/decap mappings in each direction - 6rd BR provisioning - 6rd CE provisioning by dhcp, ppp icp, tr69 - Proposed 6rd dhcp option - Dave Thaler (DT): Does 6rd support CE learning of and using multiple BR simultaneously? We know that Teredo, ISATAP and 6to4 support. - Mark: No but could be added. What is Use case? - DT: Ise multiple BR to get to different places or faster CE-triggered failover - DT: Can single host running 6rd receive RA from BR? - MT: No but desire is to do minimal set to functions to deliver IPv6 connectivity - Alain: we have Softwire Hub/Spoke but 6rd is simpler - Fred: 6rd is a fusion of isatap/vet and 6to4, can do TE if CE is aware/uses multiple BR - Dward: interest is working this? Approx 15 hands raised - Alain: Need to do charter tweaking and take to mailer draft-thaler-behave-translator-addressing-00 Dave Thaler - Presentation given in BEHAVE meeting yesterday - Open issue or question for softwire meeting is applicability of this draft to softwires efforts - Translatable is assigned to an IPv6 host; Mapped is assigned to a tunnel end-point - Called out prefix requirements - Address format requirements checksum neutral if stateless not applicable to tunnel encap/decap case - Showed address formats and some are similar to tunnel encap/decap - Options to move forward are: nothing, combined doc, split normative/informative doc and - Dui Chen: question on translation format from PNAT (discussed in BEHAVE meetings). Chair responded discussion around tunneling whereas BEHAVE handles translation - Anonymous: we should care - Remi: we should care - Prof. Li: support joint document - Alain: Asked if we should document in softwire WG - About 20 people raised their hands Draft-dhankings-softwire-tunnel-option-03 Shane Kerr - DHCP option for tunnel end-points - Brief list of items brought up on mailing list - Send comments to mailing list Draft-guo-softwire-sc-discovery - Dayong Gao - Problem: need mechanism to discover ds-lite tunnel concentrator (TC) - Alain: this option and previous DHCPoption compatible? Gao: Answer is no - Alain: We should decide of we have one all-solution generic DHCP option or per-solution DHCP tunnel option - Ralph Droms: No longer constrained by number of DHCP option codes - Fred: Observation of similarity with isatap potential router list - Remi: 6rd DHCP is short, compact with minimum information whereas in this solution we have a extra info that some solutions will not use - Gao: attempt to create generic framework/template to accommodate multiple solutions - Mark Townsley: Support separate DHCP options - Anonymous: why 3 different sc-types? Also questioning protocol type of v6 encapsulated in v6 tunnel, is there a use-case for this. Gao responded yes there could be use case. - Shane Kerr: Personnel preference for separate, per-solution DHCP options but this document could be useful as reference work - Ralph: Overhead of getting one option passed might obviate need to do this in the future for each new tunnel type A+P Randy Bush - It¹s architecture complete; just wants one place to discuss Stateless IPv4-IPv6 Interconnection DS-lite and A+P Pierre Levis - I-D.boucadair-behave-ipv6-portrange - I-D.boucadair-dslite-interco-v4v6 - Outlined general solution where access network (inclusive of CPE and CGN/DS-Lite TC/PRR) and core are all IPv6. IPv6 ISP networks connected to IPv4 Internet by Interconnection Function (ICXF). CPE uses IPv4 to access public IPv4 Internet. So IPv4 packet in ds-lite tunnel to CGN, decapped and then mapped into special IPv4-mapped IPv6 address pointing to ICXF that receives packet decaps and sends on its way. BGP used by ICXF to advert IPv6 reachability to ICXF. - Alain: Why is softwire mesh not applicable here? - Pierre: Need to analyze - Fred: can use ds-lite in 4over6over4 scenarios - Dward: need to clarify routing at peering point - draft-sarikaya-softwire-dslitemobility-00 - Behcet Sarikaya - Question: does ds-l appy to mobility solutions - Requirements: mobility different, IPv4 hosts support MIPv4, qos - Mobility Solution #1 ds-lite tunnel between PMIPv6 MAG and LMA - Mobility Solutoin #2 ds-lite tunnel from MIPv4 host and combo HA/ds-l TC - Alain: Not much done with mobility in softwire. Check with Mobility WG - Mark Townsley: When chartered we excluded mobility because they have means to do MIPv4/v6 - Raj Patel: nothing useful other than CGN in LMA - Ralph Droms: Review mobility WG to determine if this adds to MIP/PMIP methods Meeting Adjourned ------ End of Forwarded Message
- [Softwires] Softwires WG meeting Notes Durand, Alain