[v6ops] draft minutes second session Thursday 31 March, 17:40-19:40
Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Mon, 18 April 2011 01:56 UTC
Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfc.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfc.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EFDAE0680 for <v6ops@ietfc.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 18:56:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([208.66.40.236]) by localhost (ietfc.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1RAVYFzg8oXd for <v6ops@ietfc.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 18:56:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) by ietfc.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3164EE066C for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 18:56:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 23173jjaeggli.local (c-98-234-216-143.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [98.234.216.143]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p3I1u9eV008478 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Apr 2011 01:56:10 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
Message-ID: <4DAB9A38.1000506@bogus.com>
Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 18:56:08 -0700
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.2 (nagasaki.bogus.com [147.28.0.81]); Mon, 18 Apr 2011 01:56:11 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [v6ops] draft minutes second session Thursday 31 March, 17:40-19:40
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, 18 Apr 2011 01:56:14 -0000
Thursday 31 March, 17:40-19:40 12) Advisory Guidelines for 6to4 Deployment http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/80/slides/v6ops-6.pdf 11-Mar-11, <draft-carpenter-v6ops-6to4-teredo-advisory-03.txt> brian capenter - trying to put toothpaste back in the tube people having been complaining about this is an attempt to do something was not deisnged as an unmanaged solution filtering of protocol 41 is the main reason for these failures summary of issues advice to vendors do not enable 6to4 by default do not do it from rfc1918 addresses (bug) return destination unreachable if you can't do v6 don't break protocol 41 advice to transit ISPs even if you hate 6to4 you can only make things better if you run a router as a content provider running a local relay will definently help if you plan to support ipv6 randy B - 7th of june is too late tore (jabber)- The "defend against rogue RA" advice is equally important for ISPs that do not support IPV6 tim chown - Recommendation internet connection sharing should use a lower default router preference SwedeMike (jabber) - tore: yes. if you don't support ipv6, just block all 86dd between your customers brian - consider running them(relays) wes george - let me respond to that end hosts are going to do whatever 13) 6to4 Provider Managed Tunnels 13-Mar-11, <draft-kuarsingh-v6ops-6to4-provider-managed-tunnel-02.txt> http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/80/slides/v6ops-13.pptx Victor k - level set we still belive native v6 is sthe best solution 6to4 is is challanging especially when covered by carrier grade nat cgnet is already out there. There are legitimate uses of non-rfc1918 addresses behind cgnat. As noted it's low cost and can run on existing relays. Has been test since Beijing p2p with another 6to4 device doesn't work. Referalls to the address are challanging when behind the CGN it's either broken or it's not. Works for the use case we defined. Ole troan - still a symetric nat 14) Request to move Connection of IPv6 Domains via IPv4 Clouds (6to4) to Historic status 9-Mar-11, <draft-troan-v6ops-6to4-to-historic-01.txt> http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/80/slides/v6ops-5.pptx ole troan - Summary, makes 3056 and and 3068 historic. What is historic? If it is superceeded or made obsolete by another specification or no longer used. We are pretty sure that protocol 42 is not going through a lot firewalls. We are saying that this is a technology that the ietf will not evolve further. Wes george – we have to struggle with the definition of historic it's good to differentiate beween turning it off in the hosts vs turning it off in the relays fred b – precent for a widely used protocol being taken to historic, ripv1. Every cpe supported ripv1. Ripv1 had no context for cidr. That was not to say don't use it. Brian C - we should do both e.g. you can consider victor's and ole's draft at the same time. Ole t - I need this document for our linksys people Mark Handley - you stole my anecdote another certification body says do this ietf thing dave t - same thing as brian second point I likened it to two issues try to depricate different rfcs is less jsutification for 6to4 bc's presentations covered potential jsutification regarding 3484, if it changes that as well then the title needs to reflect it. Primary problem is for relays, what is fairly easy to do without code changes is to tell it not to use the relay. Tom chown - what do we use behind a host instead of 6to4 for connection sharing Igor G – guidance as to how to make it better, and oh by the way don't use it. because it's protocol 41 and it's everywhere p2p and relay are both broken Mikael A (jabber) - for me, 6to4 should go away asap, both the relay and the direct version jordi M - question of making the protocol historic vs the question of making anycast histoic. Ole T - have list of drafts for other protocols this draft says depricate the whole thing Lorenzo C - I hate to think of anything else going through it if it's this hard for us. Igor g – depricate 3068 geoff h - there are many ways that 6to4 can fail in the mehtodology I used, failures due to relays are not tested. The only failure I was seeing was really narrowed down to protocol 41 I can't measure the failures that don't get to me. Brian c - I don't believe that 3056 is broken, nobody deployed it. It's true that what microsoft did is that when folks use dns to rendezvous then you don't see much teredo. Tore A (jabber) - you will get 3056 between two end sites when the end users both have CPEs that implement it by default and send out RAs by default. and what happens then? the end hosts have 1) an IPv6 address - the 6to4 one, and 2) a default router - the CPE. this is a recipe for end-user brokenness. Geoff – whatver is going on in terredo the failure rate is right up there. Mark H - if we do something less than depricate everything we leave the door open, then disabled by default needs to also be in there. Igor G - in that spirit optional should be considered harmful and ill advised. James Woodyatt (jabber) - that would be going to far erik kline - +1 for depricating 3068 consider whether we want to save 2002 in global scope dave t (jabber)- without a relay 2002 is the same as ula erik kline - what is the status of ipv6 nat, 6pt is what I would be thinking of fred b - calling the question, this is my summary is this the recommedation we want to make? Do you believe that in general this is the way that we want to go. Hum, generally in favor, some opposition noted... for brian's draft yes for ole's draft yes for victors draft no fred - victors draft could proceed as an indivual submission lorenzo c - ipv6 day is not about deployment, we can't deploy it in two months it's about fiding problems igor g – if the drafts come out first it's useful ammunition mark handley – the bullets are nice and should be captured in one of the documents tony hain (jabber) - this decision should not be driven by intentional deployment in way that breaks it (6to4) 15) IPv6 anycast based feedback data aggregation 7-Mar-11, <draft-kanizsai-v6ops-anycast-data-aggregation-00.txt> (not presented) 16) Scalability issues in CGN Address Sharing LAFT6: Lightweight address family transition for IPv6 14-Mar-11, <draft-sun-v6ops-laft6-01.txt> Considerations for Stateless Translation (IVI/dIVI) in Large SP Network 6-Mar-11, <draft-sunq-v6ops-ivi-sp-02.txt> http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/80/slides/v6ops-15.ppt ? - experience developed on recommendations from softwire. Communications scenarios, two major first ipv4-ipv4 for most current applications and ipv6 – ipv4 for p2p cgn brings a lot of cost enumeration of changes required by solution address consumption by solution punchline ipv4 address sharing is complex roberta Maglione - need a more scalable address sharing mechanism Randy b - shes correct dslite can easily go that path Basaraj P - where do you se stateless getting mediated Shin Miazawa – pros and cons of stateless divi it is still dificult to identify behavior nat 444 can do static mappings mark h – I'm a big fan of the stateless mechanisms, when they're possible, they're not always possible. Fred - would be nice to capture all this information in an internet draft-carpenter-v6ops Jari arko - in the int area we discussed stateless and aggreed to work on stateless (in softwire) Roberta M – motivation document in softwire is called stateless solutions mark h - not supposed to specify the actual bits, architeturaly both solutions are a tunnel divi or 4rd jari a - what mark said tina t - reduce the burden fo stateful translation fred - softwire is the a place to have the future discussion. 17) Multicast Transition to IPv6 Only in Broadband Deployments 14-Mar-11, <draft-tsou-v6ops-multicast-transition-v6only-01.txt> http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/80/slides/v6ops-2.pdf tina tsuo - presentation end comments? thanks 18) Solution Model of Source Address Tracing for Carrier Grade NAT (CGN) 16-Feb-11, <draft-zhang-v6ops-cgn-source-trace-00.txt> http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/80/slides/v6ops-20.ppt Dong zang - problem is the identification of end user through nat translation hostid is another potential example. Shin M - this is a cgn requirement and we are working that. Fred B- It can't be done here it's a protocol James W (jabber) – ietf policy wiretapping (28040 is relevant to this draft). Fred B - At a minimum if people do find this useful the question is where to do it. Chris M - we have lots of methodoigies to address this. Tina T - in the cgn enviroment this one connection may belong to different users as to the question fo whether this work is useful, I think it is useful and needed. In the case of a cgn it identifies thousands of subscribers. There are other use cases roberta m - this is a useful we need traceback, other use cases in the internet area. Shin M - this is a useful but not here, we have discussed it in softwire Randy B - you know who the you who wants to know who I am is (leo) Dan wing (jabber) - the draft is inaedquate to meet the needs of law enforcement Joel j – (channeling james w at the mic) 2804 applies in that it is out of scope to consider the law enforcement requirements igor g - while I'm not advocating this randy it does provide a more fine grained method. 19) Advanced Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers 5-Mar-11, <draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-cpe-router-bis-00.txt> http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/80/slides/v6ops-3.pdf lee Howard - state mechanisms for variosu technologies in which order they should be usd do we need to support multihoming? Requirements for the smart grid. Alain durand - pcp? Lee howard - didn't want to include things that are incomplete wess g (jabber)- pcp? Joel j (jabber) - port control protocol stuart cheshire - concerned that this leaves us with one layer deep routing randy b - not cheered by the topology contraint also 1812 in the router fred b - ipv4 should be a off the table I don't have a problem with ospf randy b - is worried about rip tony (jabber) - +1 to that comment tom herbst - one case is ula scopped addresses lee h - we want requirements as approiate lorenzo c - I kind of despise ula in general but if we solve the topology problem with ospf then there's a boundry once we've figured out how to given /64s to everyone the ula works. Lee h - take it to the list ole t - this document is suppposed to be non-inovative lorenzo please write the draft. Fred B - We're finished done
- [v6ops] draft minutes second session Thursday 31 … Joel Jaeggli
- Re: [v6ops] draft minutes second session Thursday… Brian E Carpenter