Re: [v4v6interim] [46translation] [BEHAVE] Proposal for new BEHAVEcharter

Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com> Fri, 24 October 2008 16:18 UTC

Return-Path: <v4v6interim-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: v4v6interim-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-v4v6interim-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70F9B28C225; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:18:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: v4v6interim@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v4v6interim@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3072228C225; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:18:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.972
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.972 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.442, BAYES_00=-2.599, DATE_IN_PAST_06_12=1.069, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 s5vkqApjUzSA; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:18:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com (sj-iport-3.cisco.com [171.71.176.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C203428C218; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:18:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,479,1220227200"; d="scan'208";a="110909704"
Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Oct 2008 16:19:44 +0000
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m9OGJism028877; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:19:44 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m9OGJi9Y024230; Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:19:44 GMT
Received: from xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.174]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:19:44 -0700
Received: from [192.168.0.194] ([10.21.92.194]) by xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:19:43 -0700
Message-Id: <DBC9F399-F309-45D1-9CE3-FFDCF19FAE4A@cisco.com>
From: Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
To: Margaret Wasserman <mrw@lilacglade.org>
In-Reply-To: <4C1AFFD1-34DF-4DDE-A081-09C652A63CF4@lilacglade.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2)
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:28:50 +0800
References: <48F8539D.90608@ericsson.com> <48FB9C5E.8070402@gmail.com> <3E041E8D-8539-4A16-9188-86A1DCEEE62B@muada.com> <200810201358.29295.remi.denis-courmont@nokia.com> <8E5328A8-4937-41A8-A650-204795E074D1@muada.com> <5B78195C-1318-4325-8F98-BC19F59E1532@cisco.com> <01462145-8E18-465A-8989-D1C98D421DED@muada.com> <B5A2E7E1-7FAE-48B6-85E2-B1300DF1458D@cisco.com> <9E0384AB-A20B-44E7-8575-9275101FF920@muada.com><49008B8E.9080408@ericsson.com> <49008F1E.3010804@cisco.com> <EE6DCD77-43B9-40A8-B0BC-FAE79B3D8B49@lilacglade.org> <031d01c93535$c85b1140$9d6d6b80@cisco.com> <4C1AFFD1-34DF-4DDE-A081-09C652A63CF4@lilacglade.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.929.2)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Oct 2008 16:19:43.0926 (UTC) FILETIME=[5319C560:01C935F4]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2114; t=1224865184; x=1225729184; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=fred@cisco.com; z=From:=20Fred=20Baker=20<fred@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[46translation]=20[BEHAVE]=20[v4v6inter im]=20Proposal=20for=20new=20BEHAVEcharter |Sender:=20; bh=zc6q7Tv64H4WAK4xzybJ8vangOgNmS9AwfupjT4Q2yo=; b=pGuKapVBNXrjx5GBjjKmk922w/mBrZVdgtaR19W3GdFIon0RqlB58R6Hai Qkvr1S3dOaOpGhkzXJElvjzmFSMTD2UgFlLys+oW5RMXKWGhsf8Gv7CDUTIl IYVGol9XrK;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=fred@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; );
Cc: v4v6interim@ietf.org, '46Translation' <46translation@employees.org>, 'Behave WG' <behave@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v4v6interim] [46translation] [BEHAVE] Proposal for new BEHAVEcharter
X-BeenThere: v4v6interim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of coexistence topics for the 01-Oct-2008 v4-v6 coexistence interim meeting <v4v6interim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim>, <mailto:v4v6interim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/v4v6interim>
List-Post: <mailto:v4v6interim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v4v6interim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim>, <mailto:v4v6interim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"; DelSp="yes"
Sender: v4v6interim-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: v4v6interim-bounces@ietf.org

I think the best approach is to start work on it, but decouple it from  
4/6 NAT. There is, for example, no serious question of how to embed an  
IPv6 address into an IPv6 address.

I would recommend considering GSE as a basis - changing the prefix  
between two prefixes, such as a ULA and an operator prefix.

There will be issues with multiple subnet IDs; from a topology hiding  
model one wants them to go away, and in such a case there is a problem  
with host ID collisions. And if the "inside" and "outside" prefixes  
are of different lengths (ISP allocated a /56 but in my ULA I am using  
the equivalent of a /48 and embedding more than 2^8 prefixes in it)  
that also creates an issue. I would suggest a simple approach - tell  
the edge network operator that they need prefixes from the upstream  
LIRs that allow them to map subnets statelessly - that if they have  
2^9 subnets their upstreams need to give them a prefix no longer than  
64-9 bits, and they need to enumerate them so as to allow stateless  
translation.

On Oct 24, 2008, at 1:41 AM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:

>
> On Oct 23, 2008, at 1:35 PM, Dan Wing wrote:
>> BEHAVE is being re-chartered, so if the community wants BEHAVE to
>> do NAT66, now is a good time to tell the IESG to include NAT66 in
>> BEHAVE's charter.  (as you all know.)  The new charter, at this
>> time, does not include NAT66.
>>
>> And I only stated my desire to avoid the 'third rail'; the IESG can
>> certainly decide they want NAT66 standardized.  Based on my
>> understanding of how NAT66 would work, it would belong in BEHAVE.
>
> Thanks, Dan.  This is very reasonable.
>
> So, what's the best way forward?  Perhaps I could write a draft,  
> sent a pointer to behave, and we could have a discussion over the  
> next couple of weeks about whether the community does/doesn't want  
> to include this in the new behave charter?
>
> Margaret
>
> _______________________________________________
> 46translation mailing list
> 46translation@employees.org
> https://www.employees.org/mailman/listinfo/46translation

_______________________________________________
v4v6interim mailing list
v4v6interim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim