Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis
Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Mon, 24 October 2011 21:31 UTC
Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F5CC21F8A7D for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:31:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.496
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.496 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.120, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PdA1XnCvdg7X for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:31:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [74.125.121.67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9385521F8500 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:30:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hpaq5.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq5.eem.corp.google.com [172.25.149.5]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p9OLUuOG014668 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:30:56 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1319491856; bh=fzTQE0BetKY7zS9OPyGQjC33bjI=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=bHTbiYcP+lAPLEhtwM+MOZriq6HOyPjon64I1xUfO6u6ZGXnA4DfQOvDpt76lVPUi IXzZoWlqt4t9RggBaSS3Q==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=dkim-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date: message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=J4+RyVMegj3DcQlZt9EpyYT64RND0nn/99Tankl1f0ydysjC7z/FDnDAOmppY+8xt dMDbhli0WDXZ9L/fhQoXw==
Received: from ywt32 (ywt32.prod.google.com [10.192.20.32]) by hpaq5.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p9OLU3Qv017932 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:30:55 -0700
Received: by ywt32 with SMTP id 32so3954774ywt.4 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:30:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; bh=w/K6JjYdUmG1RD4yLj68N9dCgunXtz+/SJ9ztSzGX0s=; b=NYbUkaoRJNABbDKNd8fim2UzSn9TpTAmGIE4fYfHrsEgPsf9mrwN+AtE5eHJE9A4Dc vdJxrDqeOc5WmPS4+ewA==
Received: by 10.150.160.12 with SMTP id i12mr1138598ybe.15.1319491855397; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:30:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.150.160.12 with SMTP id i12mr1138581ybe.15.1319491855160; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:30:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.96.7 with HTTP; Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:30:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4EA3B23A.3050408@globis.net>
References: <4EA274CA.9090108@globis.net> <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C3031FD84D@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com> <4EA3B23A.3050408@globis.net>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 14:30:35 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr10H8Lg0GCpPS5x2KXxz9fDzb6nN7roGeHbWahLWkg8aw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ray Hunter <v6ops@globis.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000e0cd75c8c4f946104b012232d"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 24 Oct 2011 21:31:08 -0000
Section 3.2: The IPv6 CE router may be manually configured in an arbitrary topology with a dynamic routing protocol. Automatic provisioning and configuration are described for a single IPv6 CE router only. On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 23:20, Ray Hunter <v6ops@globis.net> wrote: > ** > That is not reflected in the current document. > > What I read in the title and abstract is a standards track document > defining "Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers" not > "Requirements for Basic IPv6 Customer Edge Routers (Supporting Only Directly > Connected Hosts)" > > > Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote: > > Ray, > > Let me try on the big picture for you. RFC 6204 is the Basic IPv6 CE > router specification that covers ONLY a single IPv6 router in the home > for WAN and LAN properties. After RFC 6204 was released we embarked on > a bis document to cover a two-router (connected back-to-back) scenario > and complex features that just could not get consensus for RFC 6204. > These were features such as routing, prefix delegation, multi-homing and > source-based IPv6 routing, DNS, MLD Proxy for multicast, mDNS, etc. > Recently when homenet was formed for an IETF WG, it was decided to take > the LAN section of the bis document to homenet and move IP Transition > tech in RFC form to a new rfc6204bis document so that a new version of > the Basic document could be released ASAP with IP Transition tech. Thus > anything that is not included in the current rfc6204bis is all moved to > homenet. > > Hemant > > -----Original Message----- > From: v6ops-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf > Of Ray Hunter > Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 3:46 AM > To: v6ops@ietf.org WG > Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis > > Following all IMVHO and not directed at any particular participant. > > I have been attempting to follow this discussion, as well as Homenet. > > After reading many documents including: RFC6092, RFC6333, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chown-homenet-arch-00, all the other > Homenet discussion emails, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pcp-base-16, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis-01 > > I have to admit I simply just don't get the big picture of how these > will stack up operationally. > > It seems to me that there are still many implicit assumptions being made > > that there's a nice neat stack of boxes connected together in a > particular order, carrying out particular functions, and which isn't > actually explicitly documented anywhere in a consistent manner > > e.g. > > one end user device - one CPE (owned by the ISP or the home user, > running IPv6 firewall and IPv4 NAT+firewall) - transparent internet > > one end user device - one CPE (owned by the ISP running IPv6 firewall + > DS Lite) - one AFTR running CGN for IPv4 > > one end user device - one CPE (owned by the end user running IPv6 > firewall + DS Lite) - one AFTR running CGN > [the end user device then has to comply with all of the ISP's demands > for DS-Lite and all other items in 6204bis] > > So for example, an assumption is made that there'll never be double > NATv4. Well I already have double NATv4 *within* my homenet. And I can't > > turn it off. > > I just don't see anyone addressing the practical management problem > that: > > i) the ISP has a bunch of stuff and demands and things to configure > (like DS-Lite, PPPoA, login passwords) that are highly technical, and > are very ISP network infrastructure focused. > > ii) the home user has a bunch of stuff and demands and things to > configure (like the wireless ID, print serving, music serving) that are > non-technical and very personal. > > I find it extremely unlikely that an end user is going to be able to > configure stuff like DS-Lite. > I find it extremely unlikely that an ISP is going to want to manage a > music server and routed WiFi networks in the home. > > As such I find it extremely likely that there are going to be a minimum > of two (virtual) CPE's. One owned by the ISP and one by the home user. > And that these devices will have to have the correct functions enabled. > > I can't find a protocol anywhere that allows an end node or CPE router > to discover the real topology stack of NAT box(es) or firewalls(s). > > As such I don't see how a typical end node or other PCP client has any > idea which PCP server to instruct to open or disable what. > > Seems to me you need some sort of firewall and NAT discovery protocol, > or you define that PCP requests should be sent from an end node / PCP > client to the default next hop router and you then have to hope that it > has up to date code and acts as a proxy to find the correct devices to > instruct, or you come up with a definitive service stack of which box > performs which function and exactly where in the Internet topology, or > you can expect a lot of calls to the ISP service desks. > > With all due respect, I realize of course that ISP's have vast amounts > of their own operational experience, but perhaps they've been rather > blinded by NATv4, so that they could potentially learn from the > principles enterprises apply to their inter-connections (also learned > through bitter operational experience), where interfaces between > management domains typically: > - have clear management domain boundaries and service delivery point > interfaces > - are protected and managed using secure protocols such as SSH > - generally run vanilla native protocols over a point-to-point x-over > cable running fixed-speed fixed-duplex Ethernet at the trust boundary / > service demarcation point > - are statically routed bi-directionally, or use NAT for return routing, > > or communicate via a single, agreed, heavily filtered, routing protocol > e.g. BGP or OSPF > - rarely, if ever, are complex technology interfaces split across > multiple management parties, especially if using technology such as > serial links, tunnels, encryption, ATM, PPPoA, PPPoE etc. > - if you've got a special need beyond a vanilla requirement, you provide > > your own box with your own management. > - security functions run on devices owned and managed by the person who > requires the security. > - transport networks are transparent and should not mix in any other > functionality (except in a symmetrical manner e.g. tunnel in / tunnel > out, or compression in / decompression out, from the same management > provider). > > > I'm afraid that I can't find many of these principles being applied to > the current set of documents around 6204bis/ PCP/ DS-Lite, unless of > course you assume that there's one, and only one, CPE router (which is > not in line with the Homenet architecture and discussions). > > regards, > RayH > > > From:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf > > > Of james woodyatt > Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 2:41 PM > To: IPv6 Operations > Cc:pcp-chairs@tools.ietf.org;draft-ietf-pcp-base@tools.ietf.org; > draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis@tools.ietf.org > 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. > > > > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing listv6ops@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > > > > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > v6ops@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops > >
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Maglione Roberta
- [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis fred
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Fred Baker
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis STARK, BARBARA H
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Maglione Roberta
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Fred Baker
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Fred Baker
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis STARK, BARBARA H
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Maglione Roberta
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Hemant Singh (shemant)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Simon Perreault
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Fred Baker
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis STARK, BARBARA H
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Fred Baker
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Maglione Roberta
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Ole Troan
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Maglione Roberta
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis christian.jacquenet
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Simon Perreault
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis François-Xavier Le Bail
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis christian.jacquenet
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Hemant Singh (shemant)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Stuart Cheshire
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Lorenzo Colitti
- [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Tassos Chatzithomaoglou
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Hemant Singh (shemant)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Hemant Singh (shemant)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Dan Wing
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Dan Wing
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Dan Wing
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Dan Wing
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Tassos Chatzithomaoglou
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Dan Wing
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Hemant Singh (shemant)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Doug Barton
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Tassos Chatzithomaoglou
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Hemant Singh (shemant)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Fred Baker
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Tassos Chatzithomaoglou
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Hemant Singh (shemant)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Hemant Singh (shemant)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Hemant Singh (shemant)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis james woodyatt
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Hemant Singh (shemant)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Ole Troan
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Hemant Singh (shemant)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Weil, Jason
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis STARK, BARBARA H
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Victor Kuarsingh
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Tassos Chatzithomaoglou
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Ole Troan
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Tassos Chatzithomaoglou
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Hemant Singh (shemant)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Hemant Singh (shemant)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Maglione Roberta
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Hemant Singh (shemant)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis james woodyatt
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Wes Beebee
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis STARK, BARBARA H
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Hemant Singh (shemant)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Wes Beebee
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Alain Durand
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Hemant Singh (shemant)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Reinaldo Penno
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Hemant Singh (shemant)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Dan Wing
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis christian.jacquenet
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Ole Troan
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Hemant Singh (shemant)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Tina TSOU
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Hemant Singh (shemant)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Hemant Singh (shemant)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Reinaldo Penno
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis james woodyatt
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Jeroen Massar
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Jared Mauch
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Jeroen Massar
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis james woodyatt
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Dan Wing
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Hemant Singh (shemant)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis james woodyatt
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Jared Mauch
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Mark Andrews
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis james woodyatt
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Ray Hunter
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Washam Fan
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Hemant Singh (shemant)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis SM
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Ray Hunter
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis Lorenzo Colitti