Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 02 November 2015 22:48 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 8BAFE1A8A79 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 14:48:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 tNjZsgk7_kJV for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 14:48:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pa0-x22e.google.com (mail-pa0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8C1F1A8A77 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 14:48:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by pacfv9 with SMTP id fv9so168144045pac.3 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Nov 2015 14:48:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:organization:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=j3vBr4a5c35WU9030Bb3302N0MGaMoKZ7hnPwoWAg7Q=; b=Q5Ly9xF93BefnXNop4vcr7ED5PQNrimQsRC/sqo0S4EHui7Lka1MlsIf76yvDFMCEk hjLfhadaE87Q2Ch4NeL97+t07gVps3r/9L3QNRucZjjSBZ3/BHxXiH/Q6f+eE5a2PXrZ y06g/EPT4UqH8amYnI8LIWms+ytOb2/Yo8xq1bmtvUhvmy5Fi6DFCKidwQieppazPT1a PXytSRNaBD5KNr4iGQcx3mLv1GJZ0lcl+5kyA8MDmMAxaYOOyx0dhjc/UIQOamoLbBFp 0iIUQwouGDnuDRGe9jkJOACFb/SxLCL0fVaTT8OavLo+7B3CJdBAy7z3QGtsjf1TLzMK b43Q==
X-Received: by 10.66.248.137 with SMTP id ym9mr30146080pac.157.1446504525493; Mon, 02 Nov 2015 14:48:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:df0:0:2006:c0da:ac17:5f6d:8e76? ([2001:df0:0:2006:c0da:ac17:5f6d:8e76]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id im9sm25961610pbc.1.2015.11.02.14.48.42 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 02 Nov 2015 14:48:44 -0800 (PST)
To: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>, "Liubing (Leo)" <leo.liubing@huawei.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <D25D5920.C914E%Lee.Howard@twcable.com> <563733AF.4010509@gmail.com> <8AE0F17B87264D4CAC7DE0AA6C406F45C231921A@nkgeml506-mbx.china.huawei.com> <5637D854.2090203@bogus.com>
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <5637E84B.5090001@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 11:48:43 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5637D854.2090203@bogus.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/BNT7QZhWmTsVyE9hkEELuKAFGHQ>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?
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: Mon, 02 Nov 2015 22:48:48 -0000

On 03/11/2015 10:40, joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 11/3/15 1:02 AM, Liubing (Leo) wrote:
>> And pardon for my iteration again: this draft is NOT making any
>> formal recommendations, but some considerations to refer if you're
>> going to use ULAs.
> 
> Were it completely neutral with respect to advice there would be little
> reason for it to exist.


We have this feature in IPv6. It seems a bit odd that there's nothing
beyond the bare bones in RFC 4193 that talks about it. "Here are the
things you need to think about" seems like useful content to me.

> The sense that I got from the last time this was discussed, and perhaps
> this call is there may not be stomach to take this forward as the
> product of the working group.

Well, there was when the WG adopted it. What I don't think has anything
like consensus is any statement that it's a good or bad choice to use
ULAs.

So I'd like to see this continue, purely as an FYI document.

   Brian

> 
>> Best regards, Bing
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Liubing (Leo) Sent: Tuesday,
>> November 03, 2015 12:51 AM To: 'Alexandre Petrescu'; v6ops@ietf.org 
>> Subject: RE: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations -
>> work or abandon?
>>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________ 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
>