Re: [v6ops] draft-palet-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas discussion

[Ole Troan <[e-mail]>]

> As you are on it, and given the IETF recommendation in RFC6888:
> 
>   REQ-9:  A CGN MUST implement a protocol giving subscribers explicit
>      control over NAT mappings.  That protocol SHOULD be the Port
>      Control Protocol [RFC6887].
> 
> which would apply also to the PLAT, I suggest you add an item in the 464lat section to support RFC6970.

I think that requirement needs to be reality checked.
Has any of the operators of CGNs deployed PCP? Would they allow customers to control NAT mappings at all? Or would that just be a different subscription plan?
For the other IPv4aaS mechanisms it isn't even an option...

From my perspective PCP from customers to control CGNs is not going to be deployed. I'd be happy to hear otherwise.

Ole

> 
> Cheers,
> Med
> 
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : v6ops [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
>> Envoyé : jeudi 26 avril 2018 21:41
>> À : V6 Ops List
>> Objet : Re: [v6ops] draft-palet-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas discussion
>> 
>> Hi Richard,
>> 
>> As I've moved sections 3 & 4 to the end of the document as annexes, I've
>> added a new small section for UPnP with your text. I think this also helps to
>> clarify one of the issues raised by Lee.
>> 
>> I'm working on all this changes with my co-authors, and if we are good with
>> them, we probably will submit the new version in a couple of days or so.
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Jordi
>> 
>> 
>> -----Mensaje original-----
>> De: v6ops <[e-mail]> en nombre de Richard Patterson
>> <[e-mail]>
>> Fecha: miércoles, 25 de abril de 2018, 11:16
>> Para: V6 Ops List <[e-mail]>
>> Asunto: Re: [v6ops] draft-palet-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas discussion
>> 
>>    Section 4 only briefly touches on UPnP, I'd like to propose that we
>>    make a recommendation around its behaviour if it is enabled.
>> 
>>    UPnP MAY be enabled on the IPv6 transition CE, for stateless
>>    mechanisms that forward unsolicited inbound packets through to the CE.
>>    If UPnP is enabled, the agent MUST reject any port mapping requests
>>    for ports outside of the range(s) allocated to the IPv6 transition CE.
>> 
>>    UPnP SHOULD be disabled for stateful mechanisms that do not forward
>>    unsolicited inbound packets to the CE, unless implemented in
>>    conjunction with a method to control the external port mapping, such
>>    as IGD-PCP IWF [RFC6970].
>> 
>>    -Richard
>> 
>> 
>>    On 25 April 2018 at 01:38, Fred Baker <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Apr 24, 2018, at 12:13 PM, STARK, BARBARA H <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> But that doesn't mean I believe the draft has exactly the right set of
>> features included. My understanding of "adoption" is that it is still
>> possible post-adoption to discuss whether specific features / requirements do
>> or don't belong. If the precise set of features and requirements must be
>> agreed upon prior to adoption, then I would not be in support of adoption.
>> Hopefully we aren't setting the bar that high?
>>> 
>>> I understand "adoption as a working group draft" to mean that the
>> working group has agreed to work on the draft. There are some working groups
>> that seem to confuse "adoption as a work group draft" with "agreement to send
>> it to the IESG"; I don't, but expect conversation in between those two
>> events.
>>> 
>>> That said, I'd like to believe that the draft is pretty close, and that
>> changes that need to be made to it will have text offered by the people that
>> want them. So - keep your cards and letters coming...
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> v6ops mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>> 
>> 
>>    _______________________________________________
>>    v6ops mailing list
>>    [e-mail]
>>    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> **********************************************
>> IPv4 is over
>> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>> http://www.consulintel.es
>> The IPv6 Company
>> 
>> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
>> confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the
>> individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure,
>> copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if
>> partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be
>> considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
>> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
>> information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
>> prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the
>> original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops