Re: [v6ops] Comments on draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance-04

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Thu, 22 November 2012 13:49 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.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 512B121F89B8 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 05:49:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.578
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.113, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP=1.908, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uzQVEzBRQtyj for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 05:49:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com (mail-wi0-f178.google.com [209.85.212.178]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7595021F89B9 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 05:49:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f178.google.com with SMTP id hm6so644195wib.13 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 05:49:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=q68zxyMIE7yWh5j/46SsY2AO14eEs1ZQpzg6CSRb/ys=; b=lL71rVpq83t4Tsb2dhsCvdgSBD4oNZmRLupuFItlBpLiogz0k5LAmGoJ6ZqOw9zvET 7UTn0JigaBI0kXwvaBPg+f+CqbfB0cfONfIoEjk9bNE/nvCPw4sJLJ2OVJSiptyyB3pH M73MHBHpSHxtMq3vtfhdBjEjghQbYRxrdqyjMNMTDHKcPaIPy1z17U0SN/6RhvHCrbHD hLEtGw/f0c9O8ROnU+ORvzuqAayINk0C2pYoCryfMhv6xEYRb+hj05Ty21DsK5p5iRG1 ed7+HztdMpHQ8trVvPK6UdzpmcyLaun9rxKoEibAlomWzU8c77eEG+mRtzpd2oqpcund Oc4g==
Received: by 10.180.105.134 with SMTP id gm6mr1220219wib.21.1353592181429; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 05:49:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.65] (host-2-102-218-157.as13285.net. [2.102.218.157]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id az2sm4128633wib.7.2012.11.22.05.49.39 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 22 Nov 2012 05:49:40 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <50AE2D7F.2060401@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 13:49:51 +0000
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: SM <sm@resistor.net>
References: <6.2.5.6.2.20121122003329.0b7cb9a8@elandnews.com>
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20121122003329.0b7cb9a8@elandnews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Comments on draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance-04
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: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 13:49:43 -0000

On 22/11/2012 10:44, SM wrote:
> Hi Brian, Sheng,
> 
> I read draft-ietf-v6ops-icp-guidance-04.  Here's a few comments.  Please
> consider them as editorial or nits.
> 
> In Section 2:
> 
>   "In determining the urgency of this strategy, it should be noted that
>    the central IPv4 registry (IANA) ran out of spare blocks of IPv4
>    addresses in February 2011 and the various regional registries are
>    expected to exhaust their reserves over the next one to two years."
> 
> APNIC and RIPE are in run-out mode.  It's unlikely that two of the
> regional registries will run out in a year or two.

Fair comment, but what a wasted opportunity if the LA and African regions
continue to install legacy-only IP.

> 
> I like the "just in time" advice (Section 3).  Training is ineffective
> if people do not have the means to put what they learned immediately
> into practice.
> 
> In Section 8.2:
> 
>   "One important recommendation here is that all applications should use
>    domain names, which are IP-version-independent, rather than IP
>    addresses."
> 
> This recommendation could be about content instead of applications.  Web
> pages with content such as
> "http\x3a\x2f\x2f131.253.14.66\x2fbvsandbox.aspx" can be avoided.  It
> looks like you have this covered under "possible complexities".
> 
>   "A specific issue for HTTP-based services is that IP address-based
>    cookie authentication schemes will need to deal with dual-stack
>    clients."
> 
> I don't see the following being covered in the recommendations.
> 
>  Set-Cookie: domain=131.253.14.66; [edited header]

Aren't content and cookies special cases of applications? It's all
layer 7 fluff as far as layer 3 is concerned :-).

   Brian

> 
> In Section 9:
> 
>   'At the time of this writing, this solution seems to be passing out
>    of use, being replaced by "DNS blacklisting" of customer sites known
>    to have problems with IPv6 connectivity.'
> 
> Given the past discussions about "whitelisting" (see RFC 5782) I'll
> highlight this and avoid the rehash.
> 
> Regards,
> -sm
> 
>