Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-19.txt

Yu Tianpeng <yutianpeng.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 12 February 2019 13:52 UTC

Return-Path: <yutianpeng.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: softwires@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB01F126C7E for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 05:52:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nFr-rfVlj_UU for <softwires@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 05:52:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua1-x933.google.com (mail-ua1-x933.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::933]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8E1712008A for <softwires@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 05:52:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua1-x933.google.com with SMTP id e16so871266uam.12 for <softwires@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 05:52:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=MeDLdQenhDG0iZabPLhrFbrtZxWHI4t9suy/T1aAlAk=; b=f05Vy4UPeN/lI8KB6h5UI4efHs3U+WlCkrZgW6YjawACdgZB1fUxFDrQBWf6qW9OR/ 5QqTKJMptthhbvDMO+uBYBN0iG7MRnG8LKkOhFP3lUFaxeEFM65IhHHXRtTCej4TCAim FIc0Iqc88BkpHEuct2CDf0nXcyPBCNSNWmNT1MJmThMkEmY00ilXIWiCNkfrEm8f2Kdc jE1R+XLddcOZ/hj355reERuvS3+TR76NiLkU8X3k8BuN0o9evAcc4J3gI6SBF83yYyyJ uMrr+3ZjxwexZN9NN/5ALPG4kkjGp3kwUa6EV54HZSJlLEGeZjrPU5eXIXj0wvtzfWjr b+bA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=MeDLdQenhDG0iZabPLhrFbrtZxWHI4t9suy/T1aAlAk=; b=GKodx8wAe1O2h0BWvNbb12nxW6Iau8e2eIGZovrb9bz+mkpbWNkTeL2JJ1u4DwnKvU fj9YGqpFGLWrFPt7k8oqvIuzARL2VBC0p6kqUtRCtMA9rybXQ7Rj7p3ijdqSO6jjBOR1 gMhbuM0RYTg84YmiJz7i+TtsgDewyMJHu7eabk5/wfPenfeMw6flri57QsdEzu0zt7fF TsCsZodTqa3bCaOrFfX9YmwM5wmrYUGi+HtT2gwAdjBMpBrd4dQv2kJtCOfeT9aYchFH EFSXtlAOWA0/nqWbfBTeulU4m5yorLB5l+vgm/pUT+/j8vNm0zcMjGarkbkSysWrOgSi 2GHQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuaaVH5tsNYsRFJsneAW1Yb8MXx+HhLfh9SetpXHHEWQ/FCnCPO8 oaVJGSrzTGJBJKYkcDwkxP4x6zjev6A3qBCS6ZStETok
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IY3j3+AZJLeaasK+miM63rEhCu6bFkAP8DVwqqiDSL+6zm3hBYvZ20bsBl/arM1XySZ8YEE5pj/o0+1DAhbe8w=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:5a31:: with SMTP id l46mr1465939uad.92.1549979529693; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 05:52:09 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <154987356668.18713.17343268284318010001@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKFJ8eqUYHYYWYbHvePyFfH1U4nqbUwXr8Dhe02hJZCiq7HCxw@mail.gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA1D478@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93302EA1D478@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
From: Yu Tianpeng <yutianpeng.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 13:51:58 +0000
Message-ID: <CAKFJ8eqCvO1=HmhxgQu_gL1ZQ-vcF4A=fw9P44Dtwb8evsKMkQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Cc: softwires@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000046cd180581b2bb2b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/xol7_SMCWiXsstBDT4EQv9kSuKE>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] I-D Action: draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-19.txt
X-BeenThere: softwires@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: softwires wg discussion list <softwires.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/softwires>, <mailto:softwires-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 13:52:14 -0000

Thanks a lot Mohamed.
It answers my questions.
Inline below.
Regards,
Tim

On Mon, 11 Feb 2019, 12:42 <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com wrote:

> Hi Yu,
>
>
>
> Please see inline.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Med
>
>
>
> *De :* Softwires [mailto:softwires-bounces@ietf.org] *De la part de* Yu
> Tianpeng
> *Envoyé :* lundi 11 février 2019 12:27
> *À :* softwires@ietf.org
> *Objet :* Re: [Softwires] I-D Action:
> draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-19.txt
>
>
>
> Dear authors,
>
> Thanks for the new version.
>
> I had a quick read on latest version. I find some nits and also some
> questions along the way as we meet a scenario when deploying MAP that need
> s46 radius attributes.
>
>
>
> Nits:
>
> Section 7.1 should be referring section 3.x not 4.x
>
> [Med] Thank you for catching the bug in Section 7.1.
>
>
>
> Question:
>
> 1. How is the status of this document? This draft has last called long
> time ago, but still not standard yet. What is the reason? Any plans to move
> further? As I mentioned we meet requirement when deploying map, we may need
> to make a decision if we follow this draft or define a vendor specific one.
>
>
>
> [Med] The document passed the WGLC + addressed the reviews from radext wg.
> We do think that the document is ready to be sent to the IESG.
>
>  [Tim] glad to know. Thanks
>
> 2. This draft seems haven't consider conflicts between subscribers. E.g.
> EA length conflict between subscribers with in one MAP domain? And EA
> length from radius conflict with BNG within same MAP domain?
>
> As this draft enables the capability to maintain MAP rule logic in radius,
> conflict mechanisn should be investigated in my POV.
>
>
>
> [Med] Which conflict mechanism do you have in mind?
>
>
>
> I’m afraid this is deployment and implementation-specific. FWIW, the draft
> includes the following to warrant that some consistency checks is needed:
>
>
>
>    In some deployments, the DHCP server may use the Accounting-Request
>
>    to report to a AAA server the softwire configuration returned to a
>
>    requesting host.  It is the responsibility of the DHCP server to
>
>    ensure the consistency of the configuration provided to requesting
>
>    hosts.
>
>  [Tim] yes, it solves one of the scenario I mentioned.
>
I believe if dhcp server use access request to get s46 info from AAA, then
> AAA server is response to enrue the consistency I suppose. Am I right?
>

>
> Appreciate your feedback.
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Tim
>
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2019, 08:26 <internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Softwires WG of the IETF.
>
>         Title           : RADIUS Attributes for Address plus Port (A+P)
> based Softwire Mechanisms
>         Authors         : Sheng Jiang
>                           Yu Fu
>                           Bing Liu
>                           Peter Deacon
>                           Chongfeng Xie
>                           Tianxiang Li
>                           Mohamed Boucadair
>         Filename        : draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-19.txt
>         Pages           : 39
>         Date            : 2019-02-11
>
> Abstract:
>    IPv4-over-IPv6 transition mechanisms provide IPv4 connectivity
>    services over IPv6 native networks during the IPv4/IPv6 co-existence
>    period.  DHCPv6 options have been defined for configuring clients for
>    Lightweight 4over6, Mapping of Address and Port with Encapsulation,
>    and Mapping of Address and Port using Translation unicast softwire
>    mechanisms, and also multicast softwires.  However, in many networks,
>    configuration information is stored in an Authentication,
>    Authorization, and Accounting server which utilizes the RADIUS
>    protocol to provide centralized management for users.  When a new
>    transition mechanism is developed, new RADIUS attributes need to be
>    defined correspondingly.
>
>    This document defines new RADIUS attributes to carry Address plus
>    Port based softwire configuration parameters from an Authentication,
>    Authorization, and Accounting server to a Broadband Network Gateway.
>    Both unicast and multicast attributes are covered.
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius/
>
> There are also htmlized versions available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-19
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-19
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-softwire-map-radius-19
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Softwires mailing list
> Softwires@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
>
>