Re: [v6ops] draft-palet-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas discussion

[JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>]

Done, thanks!

So, I removed the SHOULD for PCP, as it is already in RFC7084, but added (DS-LITE and 464XLAT):

	The CE Router SHOULD support IGD-PCP IWF [RFC6970] (UPnP
               Internet Gateway Device - Port Control Protocol
               Interworking Function).

Regards,
Jordi
 
 
-----Mensaje original-----
De: <[e-mail]>
Fecha: viernes, 27 de abril de 2018, 10:37
Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>, V6 Ops List <[e-mail]>
Asunto: RE: [v6ops] draft-palet-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas discussion

    Jordi, 
    
    That is what I was suggesting. 
    
    Cheers,
    Med
    
    > -----Message d'origine-----
    > De : v6ops [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
    > Envoyé : vendredi 27 avril 2018 10:32
    > À : V6 Ops List
    > Objet : Re: [v6ops] draft-palet-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas discussion
    > 
    > Responding to myself ... The alternative maybe to not say anything about
    > RFC6887, so the SHOULD in RFC7084 is in effect and add a SHOULD for RFC6970.
    > 
    > Regards,
    > Jordi
    > 
    > 
    > -----Mensaje original-----
    > De: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>
    > Fecha: viernes, 27 de abril de 2018, 10:27
    > Para: V6 Ops List <[e-mail]>
    > Asunto: Re: [v6ops] draft-palet-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas discussion
    > 
    >     The difference is in RFC7084 is a SHOULD for RFC6887, while here I'm
    > suggesting a MUST when DS-LITE or 464XLAT are implemented.
    > 
    >     Asking a MUST for RFC6970, and not having a MUST in RFC6887 seems weird
    > ...
    > 
    >     Regards,
    >     Jordi
    > 
    > 
    >     -----Mensaje original-----
    >     De: <[e-mail]>
    >     Fecha: viernes, 27 de abril de 2018, 9:45
    >     Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>, V6 Ops List
    > <[e-mail]>
    >     Asunto: RE: [v6ops] draft-palet-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas discussion
    > 
    >         Re-,
    > 
    >         Please see inline.
    > 
    >         Cheers,
    >         Med
    > 
    >         > -----Message d'origine-----
    >         > De : v6ops [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de JORDI
    > PALET MARTINEZ
    >         > Envoyé : vendredi 27 avril 2018 08:27
    >         > À : V6 Ops List
    >         > Objet : Re: [v6ops] draft-palet-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas discussion
    >         >
    >         > Hi Med,
    >         >
    >         > In the document I'm editing right now, I've it already support for
    > RFC6887
    >         > (464XLAT-2):
    > 
    >         [Med] You don't need to add an item for 6887 since this is already
    > covered in 7084:
    > 
    >            W-6:  The WAN interface of the CE router SHOULD support a Port
    >                  Control Protocol (PCP) client as specified in [RFC6887] for
    > use
    >                  by applications on the CE router.  The PCP client SHOULD
    > follow
    >                  the procedure specified in Section 8.1 of [RFC6887] to
    > discover
    >                  its PCP server.  This document takes no position on whether
    >                  such functionality is enabled by default or mechanisms by
    > which
    >                  users would configure the functionality.  Handling PCP
    > requests
    >                  from PCP clients in the LAN side of the CE router is out of
    >                  scope.
    > 
    >         My comment is about the IWF which is needed to allow an UPnP Control
    > Point to interact with a PCP server.
    > 
    >         >
    >         >    464XLAT requirements:
    >         >
    >         >    464XLAT-1:  The CE Router MUST perform IPv4 Network Address
    >         >                Translation (NAT) on IPv4 traffic translated using
    > the
    >         >                CLAT, unless a dedicated /64 prefix has been
    > acquired
    >         >                using DHCPv6-PD [RFC3633] (IPv6 Prefix Options for
    >         >                DHCPv6).
    >         >
    >         >    464XLAT-2:  The CE Router MUST support PCP [RFC6887] (Port
    > Control
    >         >                Protocol), for explicit control over NAT64 mappings.
    > 
    >         [Med] This one should be removed since it overlaps with W-6 in 7084.
    > 
    >         >
    >         >    464XLAT-3:  The CE Router MUST implement [RFC7050] (Discovery of
    > the
    >         >                IPv6 Prefix Used for IPv6 Address Synthesis) in
    > order to
    >         >                discover the PLAT-side translation IPv4 and IPv6
    >         >                prefix(es)/suffix(es).  The CE Router MUST follow
    >         >                [RFC7225] (Discovering NAT64 IPv6 Prefixes Using the
    >         >                PCP), in order to learn the PLAT-side translation
    > IPv4
    >         >                and IPv6 prefix(es)/suffix(es) used by an upstream
    > PCP-
    >         >                controlled NAT64 device.
    >         >
    >         >
    >         > But I now realice that it should be added as well to the DS-Lite
    > section, as
    >         > it was not present in RFC7084. This is what I've right now:
    >         >
    >         >   DS-Lite requirements:
    >         >
    >         >    DSLITE-1:  The IPv6 CE router MUST support configuration of DS-
    > Lite
    >         >               via the DS-Lite DHCPv6 option [RFC6334] (DHCPv6
    > Option for
    >         >               Dual-Stack Lite).  The IPv6 CE router MAY use other
    >         >               mechanisms to configure DS-Lite parameters.  Such
    >         >               mechanisms are outside the scope of this document.
    >         >
    >         >    DSLITE-2:  The IPv6 CE router MUST NOT perform IPv4 Network
    > Address
    >         >               Translation (NAT) on IPv4 traffic encapsulated using
    > DS-
    >         >               Lite.
    >         >
    >         >
    >         > So just to make sure, you mean to add also to both, 464LAT and DS-
    > LITE also a
    >         > MUST for RFC6970 ?
    > 
    >         [Med] Yes, I'd like to add an item for the IWF, not the PCP Client
    > functionality.
    > 
    >         >
    >         > We have a new section with this text suggested by Richard:
    >         >
    >         > 5.  UPnP IGD-PCP IWF Support
    >         >
    >         >    UPnP MAY be enabled on the CE Router for stateless mechanisms
    > that
    >         >    forward unsolicited inbound packets through to the CE.  If UPnP
    > is
    >         >    enabled, the agent MUST reject any port mapping requests for
    > ports
    >         >    outside of the range(s) allocated to the CE Router.
    >         >
    >         >    UPnP SHOULD be disabled for stateful mechanisms that do not
    > forward
    >         >    unsolicited inbound packets to the CE Router, unless implemented
    > in
    >         >    conjunction with a method to control the external port mapping,
    > such
    >         >    as IGD-PCP IWF [RFC6970] (UPnP Internet Gateway Device - Port
    > Control
    >         >    Protocol Interworking Function).
    >         >
    > 
    >         [Med] this text does not recommend implementing the IWF.
    > 
    >         >
    >         > Regards,
    >         > Jordi
    >         >
    >         >
    >         > -----Mensaje original-----
    >         > De: <[e-mail]>
    >         > Fecha: viernes, 27 de abril de 2018, 7:26
    >         > Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>, V6 Ops
    > List
    >         > <[e-mail]>
    >         > Asunto: RE: [v6ops] draft-palet-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas discussion
    >         >
    >         >     Hi Jordi,
    >         >
    >         >     As you are on it, and given the IETF recommendation in RFC6888:
    >         >
    >         >        REQ-9:  A CGN MUST implement a protocol giving subscribers
    > explicit
    >         >           control over NAT mappings.  That protocol SHOULD be the
    > Port
    >         >           Control Protocol [RFC6887].
    >         >
    >         >     which would apply also to the PLAT, I suggest you add an item
    > in the
    >         > 464lat section to support RFC6970.
    >         >
    >         >     Cheers,
    >         >     Med
    >         >
    >         >     > -----Message d'origine-----
    >         >     > De : v6ops [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de
    > JORDI PALET
    >         > MARTINEZ
    >         >     > Envoyé : jeudi 26 avril 2018 21:41
    >         >     > À : V6 Ops List
    >         >     > Objet : Re: [v6ops] draft-palet-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas
    > discussion
    >         >     >
    >         >     > Hi Richard,
    >         >     >
    >         >     > As I've moved sections 3 & 4 to the end of the document as
    > annexes,
    >         > I've
    >         >     > added a new small section for UPnP with your text. I think
    > this also
    >         > helps to
    >         >     > clarify one of the issues raised by Lee.
    >         >     >
    >         >     > I'm working on all this changes with my co-authors, and if we
    > are good
    >         > with
    >         >     > them, we probably will submit the new version in a couple of
    > days or
    >         > so.
    >         >     >
    >         >     > Thanks!
    >         >     >
    >         >     > Regards,
    >         >     > Jordi
    >         >     >
    >         >     >
    >         >     > -----Mensaje original-----
    >         >     > De: v6ops <[e-mail]> en nombre de Richard
    > Patterson
    >         >     > <[e-mail]>
    >         >     > Fecha: miércoles, 25 de abril de 2018, 11:16
    >         >     > Para: V6 Ops List <[e-mail]>
    >         >     > Asunto: Re: [v6ops] draft-palet-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas
    > discussion
    >         >     >
    >         >     >     Section 4 only briefly touches on UPnP, I'd like to
    > propose that we
    >         >     >     make a recommendation around its behaviour if it is
    > enabled.
    >         >     >
    >         >     >     UPnP MAY be enabled on the IPv6 transition CE, for
    > stateless
    >         >     >     mechanisms that forward unsolicited inbound packets
    > through to the
    >         > CE.
    >         >     >     If UPnP is enabled, the agent MUST reject any port
    > mapping requests
    >         >     >     for ports outside of the range(s) allocated to the IPv6
    > transition
    >         > CE.
    >         >     >
    >         >     >     UPnP SHOULD be disabled for stateful mechanisms that do
    > not forward
    >         >     >     unsolicited inbound packets to the CE, unless implemented
    > in
    >         >     >     conjunction with a method to control the external port
    > mapping,
    >         > such
    >         >     >     as IGD-PCP IWF [RFC6970].
    >         >     >
    >         >     >     -Richard
    >         >     >
    >         >     >
    >         >     >     On 25 April 2018 at 01:38, Fred Baker
    > <[e-mail]>
    >         > wrote:
    >         >     >     >
    >         >     >     >
    >         >     >     >> On Apr 24, 2018, at 12:13 PM, STARK, BARBARA H
    > <[e-mail]>
    >         > wrote:
    >         >     >     >>
    >         >     >     >> But that doesn't mean I believe the draft has exactly
    > the right
    >         > set of
    >         >     > features included. My understanding of "adoption" is that it
    > is still
    >         >     > possible post-adoption to discuss whether specific features /
    >         > requirements do
    >         >     > or don't belong. If the precise set of features and
    > requirements must
    >         > be
    >         >     > agreed upon prior to adoption, then I would not be in support
    > of
    >         > adoption.
    >         >     > Hopefully we aren't setting the bar that high?
    >         >     >     >
    >         >     >     > I understand "adoption as a working group draft" to
    > mean that the
    >         >     > working group has agreed to work on the draft. There are some
    > working
    >         > groups
    >         >     > that seem to confuse "adoption as a work group draft" with
    > "agreement
    >         > to send
    >         >     > it to the IESG"; I don't, but expect conversation in between
    > those two
    >         >     > events.
    >         >     >     >
    >         >     >     > That said, I'd like to believe that the draft is pretty
    > close,
    >         > and that
    >         >     > changes that need to be made to it will have text offered by
    > the people
    >         > that
    >         >     > want them. So - keep your cards and letters coming...
    >         >     >     >
    >         >     >     > _______________________________________________
    >         >     >     > v6ops mailing list
    >         >     >     > [e-mail]
    >         >     >     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
    >         >     >     >
    >         >     >
    >         >     >     _______________________________________________
    >         >     >     v6ops mailing list
    >         >     >     [e-mail]
    >         >     >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
    >         >     >
    >         >     >
    >         >     >
    >         >     >
    >         >     > **********************************************
    >         >     > IPv4 is over
    >         >     > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
    >         >     > http://www.consulintel.es
    >         >     > The IPv6 Company
    >         >     >
    >         >     > This electronic message contains information which may be
    > privileged or
    >         >     > confidential. The information is intended to be for the
    > exclusive use
    >         > of the
    >         >     > individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty
    > authorized
    >         > disclosure,
    >         >     > copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
    > information, even
    >         > if
    >         >     > partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited
    > and will be
    >         >     > considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended
    > recipient be
    >         > aware
    >         >     > that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the
    > contents of
    >         > this
    >         >     > information, even if partially, including attached files, is
    > strictly
    >         >     > prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you
    > must reply to
    >         > the
    >         >     > original sender to inform about this communication and delete
    > it.
    >         >     >
    >         >     >
    >         >     >
    >         >     > _______________________________________________
    >         >     > v6ops mailing list
    >         >     > [e-mail]
    >         >     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
    >         >
    >         >
    >         >
    >         >
    >         > **********************************************
    >         > IPv4 is over
    >         > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
    >         > http://www.consulintel.es
    >         > The IPv6 Company
    >         >
    >         > This electronic message contains information which may be
    > privileged or
    >         > confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive
    > use of the
    >         > individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized
    > disclosure,
    >         > copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information,
    > even if
    >         > partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and
    > will be
    >         > considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended
    > recipient be aware
    >         > that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents
    > of this
    >         > information, even if partially, including attached files, is
    > strictly
    >         > prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must
    > reply to the
    >         > original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
    >         >
    >         >
    >         >
    >         > _______________________________________________
    >         > v6ops mailing list
    >         > [e-mail]
    >         > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > **********************************************
    > IPv4 is over
    > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
    > http://www.consulintel.es
    > The IPv6 Company
    > 
    > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or
    > confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the
    > individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure,
    > copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if
    > partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be
    > considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware
    > that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
    > information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly
    > prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the
    > original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
    > 
    > 
    > 
    > _______________________________________________
    > v6ops mailing list
    > [e-mail]
    > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
    



**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.