Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis

["Dan Wing" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of STARK, BARBARA H
> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 1:58 PM
> To: [e-mail]; Weil, Jason; james woodyatt; IPv6
> Operations
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis
> 
> Hey Med,
> 
> There are many things that service providers make mandatory on routers
> they procure and provide to customers, that are not necessarily found
> on retail CE routers. Given your answer, my questions would be (1) Do
> you expect to allow customers to use their own CE router that they
> purchase at retail, that is not associated with your service, and (2)
> if so, would you tell customers that support for PCP in such retail-
> purchased routers is mandatory – they will not be allowed to connect,
> or the DS-Lite service won’t work right, if there is no PCP support in
> the CE router.
> 
> 
> 
> The 6rd requirements that I’m pushing for are such that the service may
> not work (i.e., non-functioning or broken IPv6 connectivity via 6rd) if
> the requirements aren’t implemented. That’s why they’re so important to
> me. I really have a hard time believing that this is true of PCP (WAN,
> LAN, or wherever) in the context of DS-Lite.

A Dual Stack-Lite CPE provides both IPv4 and IPv6 service to subscribers.
RFC6092 recommends that IPv6 service block incoming unsolicited traffic
from the Internet (except allow IKE and IPsec), so that IPv6 service 
functions like today's NAPT44 which filter incoming traffic.  RFC6092 
also suggests a protocol be deployed so that the IPv6 hosts can 
indicate they want to receive incoming unsolicited IPv6 traffic.

If the Dual Stack-Lite CPE do RFC6092-recommended filtering, the CPE
will only work with outgoing (client-initiated) connections.

... So: if we want an IPv6 Internet that provides end-to-end 
addressability and connectivity, users (a) need to deploy no 
IPv6 filtering (which seems a difficult proposition, based on the
deployment experience of both Apple and Linksys) or (b) we need a
protocol to open IPv6 filters.

The only protocols that I'm aware of that allow the host to open
its CPE's IPv6 filters are are PCP and UPnP IGD version 2.

If we don't want an IPv6 Internet that provides end-to-end
addressability and connectivity, we don't need PCP and 
don't need UPnP IGD version 2.

-d

> Barbara
> 
> 
> 
> From: [e-mail]
> [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 4:39 AM
> To: STARK, BARBARA H; Weil, Jason; james woodyatt; IPv6 Operations
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Barbara,
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking for our own DS-Lite deployment, PCP is mandatory to have. This
> is something we made clear to our DS-Lite vendors. Some of them support
> already PCP (based on version -13).
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Med
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> De : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part
> de STARK, BARBARA H
> Envoyé : mardi 18 octobre 2011 23:43
> À : Weil, Jason; james woodyatt; IPv6 Operations
> Cc : [e-mail]
> Objet : Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis
> 
> In the 6204bis document, I’m only willing to consider the UPnP proxy +
> WAN-side PCP. There are so many other uses of PCP, that I think it
> would drag us down a rat-hole to try to specify all the other places
> where PCP would need to be supported. And since there’s no indication
> as to level of support of PCP in LAN devices, I can’t support its
> recommendation at this time for LAN-side use. That needs to be a
> homenet topic. But I’d only support this PCP requirement if PCP really
> were ready to become an RFC. And it sounds like it isn’t anywhere near
> to being ready. It sounds like there are people who feel like there are
> a number of issues to address.
> 
> 
> 
> I need 6rd now. If 6204bis is going to be hijacked by those who want to
> describe all possible uses of PCP and insist on waiting for all issues
> around PCP to be resolved, then let’s just forget about it, and let me
> figure out some non-IETF way to get out the message for 6rd. If others
> want to wait a year or two to do some comprehensive transition
> technology document, then y’all have at it. I’ve got more pressing
> matters to deal with (like getting the word out now on 6rd). It sounds
> like there’s also a need to get out the word out on DS-Lite
> requirements. I’m happy to include DS-Lite with 6rd, because DS-Lite
> has stable RFCs. But if PCP is an absolute requirement for DS-Lite
> (WAN-side? LAN-side? simple-security? NAT46? NAT64? NAT44? – I really
> wish proponents of PCP would be extremely specific as to which aspect
> of PCP they need, because when they aren’t specific, I can only assume
> they want it all, which I’m not ready to support), then I’m not happy
> to include DS-Lite. Because (1) if there’s a need for all LAN clients
> to support PCP or UPnP in order for DS-Lite to be usable, then DS-Lite
> must be a long way off, and (2) it sounds like publication of a PCP RFC
> is a long way off.
> 
> 
> 
> My question to the DS-Lite proponents is:
> 
> Would you support DS-Lite requirements in a 6204bis without PCP
> requirements?
> 
> 
> 
> If your answer is “No”, then I think it’s time for me to get 6rd
> requirements published elsewhere. I’ve wasted too much time with the
> expectation that IETF would be a good venue for these 6rd CE router
> requirements, so I’d really like for there to be a decision soon.
> 
> Barbara
> 
> 
> 
> From: Weil, Jason [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 5:11 PM
> To: james woodyatt; IPv6 Operations
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis
> 
> 
> 
> Fwiw my only interest in PCP today is to satisfy REC-48 type
> functionality in a native Dual-stack CPE Router with an IPv6 firewall
> enabled. We are specifying RFC6092 functionality today for home
> gateways and the two options on the table to allow applications to
> signal their requirements to firewall are (I thought) PCP and UPnP.  If
> PCP isn’t ready to do this functionality fairly soon then it is becomes
> mostly  useless in my book and I will have to look elsewhere for that
> functionality. If it is close and we can get it included in 6204bis, it
> would make sense to wait for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> 
> Jason
> 
> 
> 
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of james woodyatt
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 2:41 PM
> To: IPv6 Operations
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis
> 
> 
> 
> On Oct 18, 2011, at 10:33 AM, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 	 But the PCP base document needs to become a RFC ASAP
> 
> 
> 
> The current revision, I-D.ietf-pcp-base-14 is unsuitable for the
> purposes described in REC-48 of RFC 6092, in my opinion.  I'm hoping
> that the forthcoming -15 revision will be acceptable, but I don't
> actually see it on the server yet, and some of the more authoritative
> participants in the working group are balking at being asked to
> consider a new revision of the draft.
> 
> 
> 
> One of the things that would help here is for the PCP working group to
> stop thinking that their job is done after they specify how ports are
> mapped for translation and address amplification with NAT44 and NAT64
> and to start remembering that their draft actually purports to explain
> how PCP can meet REC-48 of RFC 6092 as well.  Every time I bring up a
> point that shows how their draft falls down on that point, they
> complain that nobody cares about IPv6 CPE routers, or transports other
> than TCP and UDP, or this, that or the other thing, and tell me they
> plan to fix it in the next round of RFC development.  Fortunately, the
> chair and the technical editor of the draft seem to be paying attention
> to the problems, but I do *NOT* feel at all comfortable that the
> community of PCP implementers is ready to consider simple security in
> IPv6 CPE routers.
> 
> 
> 
> I am very concerned that IPv6 CPE router vendors will rush out devices
> that contain early reference implementations of PCP, because it is
> standards track, but have simple security functions that are *MUCH*
> less transparent than the Informational category RFC 6092 recommends.
> If this happens, then PCP servers in these ubiquitous and sure-to-
> never-be-upgraded home gateways will establish a conventional
> restriction on the transparency of IPv6 residential service that
> unnecessarily mimics the brokenness of IPv4/NAPT.  We should endeavor
> to avoid the possibility of a disaster like that, if at all possible,
> and I'm sensing a significant resistance to that concern among an
> influential cadre of PCP working group participants and implementers.
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, I'd prefer that any update to RFC 6204 either wait for PCP
> to be revised appropriately in a second RFC, or that it not contain any
> recommendation for a PCP server at all.  Alternatively, the
> stakeholders in RFC 6204 could engage more directly with the PCP
> working group, so that Keith Moore and I are not the only ones speaking
> up in the defense of your interests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 
> james woodyatt <[e-mail]>
> 
> member of technical staff, core os networking
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> 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.