Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations

Hi Dear Alex and all,

Speaking as a co-author.
I wasn't in the v6ops session this afternoon. And I'm sorry for the silence of the draft for a while, but I do wish to continue working on it.

There was indeed lots of controversial discussion on it, but many of them (even most of them) was just not directly regarding to the draft itself (mostly the IPv6 NAT debate). For the draft, we heard few negative comments, but much more positive comments that were in favor of advancing it. Unfortunately, we didn't get the chance to WGLC, and we also didn't get some essential feedback of how to improve it. So the draft was kind of stuck there. No doubt it should be my responsibility to approach it, but the WG's feedback is also very important/helpful for us.

And thanks for Alex' response, you're more than welcome to contribute on this draft. We can have some detailed discussion later to figure out how to make an update.

For people who are in favor of advancing this draft, I expect very much you could state your opinion on this. 
Many thanks to you all.

Best regards,
Bing

-----Original Message-----
From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandre Petrescu
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 6:58 PM
To: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?

Hello,

I would like to continue working on this draft.

I am not sure what is needed to continue working on this draft?  Is it ready to go as is?

The ULAs I consider are (1) in the core of enterprise PA+ULA network slowly migrating to IPv6 and (2) in vehicles at manufacturing time.

In an enterprise network, I wonder whether ULAs coexist well with IPv4 on a same VLAN, or must they be each on its own VLAN?  Such as to leave
IPv4 continue exist well.  I think a recommendation on this is very valuable, at least to me.

Also, I wonder whether simply adding ULAs on interfaces of a well-known
router means that it will automatically turn on NAT66? (or not?)   Will
the packets addressed to them from a PA-part of the enterprise network be dropped by default?

More generally - what is the precise knob which blocks ULA-addressed packets from leaking to the Internet?  Is this a matter of a routing protocol knob, like e.g. BGP having a definition of an area around ULAs?
  Or is it a matter of on/off knob which allows/disallows reaching a ULA in the network attached to a particular interface?  Or does it only depend of a trivial static route being present or absent in the forward information base?

For ULAs in a vehicle, it is a bit early to describe the problems and the needed advice, but I speculate there will be a need for this.  We have several drafts and implementations on this topic.

Alex

Le 02/11/2015 18:17, Howard, Lee a écrit :
> This document hasn¹t had any revisions or discussion in a while. Is 
> there anyone interested in working on it?
>
> If we do not hear any interest, we will abandon this draft.
>
> Thanks, Lee
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> 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 mailing list 
> v6ops@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops