Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-addr-availability
"George, Wes" <wesley.george@twcable.com> Sun, 26 July 2015 01:21 UTC
Return-Path: <wesley.george@twcable.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 512D01ACDA2 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 18:21:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.424
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.424 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
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 V-dfgh4XQj3x for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 18:21:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cdpipgw01.twcable.com (cdpipgw01.twcable.com [165.237.59.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEFA41ACD9D for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 18:21:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-SENDER-IP: 10.136.163.11
X-SENDER-REPUTATION: None
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,544,1432612800"; d="scan'208";a="916625576"
Received: from unknown (HELO PRVPEXHUB02.corp.twcable.com) ([10.136.163.11]) by cdpipgw01.twcable.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-MD5; 25 Jul 2015 21:14:01 -0400
Received: from PRVPEXVS10.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.41]) by PRVPEXHUB02.corp.twcable.com ([10.136.163.11]) with mapi; Sat, 25 Jul 2015 21:21:03 -0400
From: "George, Wes" <wesley.george@twcable.com>
To: "fred@cisco.com" <fred@cisco.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 21:21:02 -0400
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-addr-availability
Thread-Index: AdDHQVYZ4noURFk6SE2mgaJ0/gjbLg==
Message-ID: <D1D96418.5E52E%wesley.george@twcable.com>
References: <201507061147.t66Bl1AE028312@irp-lnx1.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <201507061147.t66Bl1AE028312@irp-lnx1.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.5.3.150624
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/-NlHzYac6wNYiWLPj_HG3wACswo>
Cc: "draft-colitti-v6ops-host-addr-availability@tools.ietf.org" <draft-colitti-v6ops-host-addr-availability@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-addr-availability
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 01:21:08 -0000
I've read -01. I support the part of the draft that explains why multiple addresses are necessary. The detail around not having to have every application on a device bound to the same address is quite important and not at all intuitive to those used to thinking about IPv4 implementations with only one address available. However, there are some other sections of this draft that need some refinement to provide better supporting arguments for the recommendations being given. Section 3 - 5th bullet "Translation-based.." Need a reference to the 464XLat doc up here instead of below, specifically a pointer to the section dictating the use of a separate address Section 4- This section is pretty handwavey right now. There are plenty of things in the mobile space that involve waiting for something to happen in network provisioning. Connecting to the network isn't instantaneous, nor is enabling tethering. Many times application launches or actions are delayed by radio wake-up or network congestion, etc. I agree that there is an maximum window of what constitutes a good user experience, but if I can have a DHCPv6 server listening for subsequent requests for addresses and it gets them back to you within a reasonable window for a good user experience, you need to explain why that won't work. You also need to explain why if you know that a certain number of addresses are needed, why a device couldn't request more than one when connecting to the network initially. I realize mobile isn't the only case here, so we need to have the same discussion for other types of applications - since instant isn't a valid answer, because almost nothing is instant on from cold, what's the outside envelope for a good user experience? Think in terms of initial connection to the network (where you might ask for multiple addresses) and then subsequent wakeup where you already have them. If there's complexity in dealing with failure cases, or uncertainty on whether a feature is available, explain those issues in more depth. Again, mobile devices tell users all the time "service not available" or "restricted by carrier" or whatever. I'm not defending that as a good user experience, but I'm not certain we can discount solutions based on what we don't like about how carriers and devices operate today. In other words, giving a device as many addresses as it wants isn't going to fix all of those other things that contribute to a bad user experience because they are restricted by the carrier or impacted by the behavior of the network, so I don't see solving that issue here as an imperative. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, but that's something that the draft needs to discuss. I think you also need to distinguish in the draft between implementations or situations that REQUIRE more than one address or else they simply won't work (such as tethering, VMs, etc) vs implementations where it's simply easier to use multiple addresses than binding the same address to multiple application sockets such as you would do with a single IPv4 address. If you're actually doing an IPv4 NAT within the device today to avoid having to have multiple applications using the same address in IPv4, then make that clear in the document. Section 5 - I think we need to cut this section down to a bare minimum or eliminate it. Waving the NAT boogeyman isn't really the argument to lead with, unless the authors or other OS manufacturers actually see this as a credible alternative and are willing to implement it instead of other options. Otherwise it's just FUD. It's more accurate at this point to say that NAT doesn't exist for IPv6, because the IETF document is experimental (IIRC, I'm writing this on a plane and can't check) and no implementations really exist in the wild, so another solution is required. We've already written plenty about why NATs are bad elsewhere. 9.1 is combative, dismissive, and incomplete. The problem is not that operators have made the argument that DHCPv6 is the only way to... What they've said is that they require a way to track which IPv6 addresses are assigned to which hosts for policy and legal reasons, and that is driving a set of deployment decisions. That's not up for debate or negotiation, and is part of the reason why other discussions of this issue have been so...vigorous. IETF needs to get out of the habit of telling operators that their problem isn't a problem, and focus on discussing the possible solutions, identifying what consensus says is the best way to solve the problem. There are several ways to solve the stated problem. One is DHCPv6. It has pros and cons, some of which are discussed elsewhere in the document, mainly in the form of why DHCPv6 to assign a single address is a problem. Another way is whatever the authors are doing on their own networks. I assume that it also has pros and cons, but since it's not even discussed, right now you're basically making an unsupported assertion that it's an alternative. Further, you make no effort to explain how a dual-stack enterprise network is the same (i.e. It shares this need for tracking) as the mentioned examples of academic and other networks that provide third party services. Discuss the alternatives equally instead of trying to predispose the reader to agree with your pre-conceived belief that DHCPv6 isn't necessary or not the best way to do this because its cons outweigh its pros. This is where Erik's suggestion about other methods of logging belongs as well. Thanks, Wes On 7/6/15, 7:47 AM, "v6ops on behalf of fred@cisco.com" <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of fred@cisco.com> wrote: >A new draft has been posted, at >http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-colitti-v6ops-host-addr-availability. >Please take a look at it and comment. > >_______________________________________________ >v6ops mailing list >v6ops@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.
- [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-addr-… fred
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-a… Simon Perreault
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-a… Sander Steffann
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-a… Andrew Yourtchenko
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-a… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-a… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-a… Erik Kline
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-a… Yury Shefer
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-a… Tore Anderson
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-a… Ray Hunter
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-a… Erik Kline
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-a… Tore Anderson
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-a… Andrew 👽 Yourtchenko
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-a… Hemant Singh (shemant)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-a… Hemant Singh (shemant)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-a… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-a… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-a… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-a… Hemant Singh (shemant)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-a… Sander Steffann
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-a… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-a… Tom Taylor
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-a… Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-a… Erik Kline
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-a… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-a… Mukom Akong T.
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-a… Dave Thaler
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-a… Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-a… Ross Chandler
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-a… Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-a… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-a… George, Wes
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-a… George, Wes
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-a… Mark Smith
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-a… George, Wes
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-a… Templin, Fred L
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-a… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-a… Fred Baker (fred)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-colitti-v6ops-host-a… Alexandru Petrescu