Re: [v6ops] Fwd: 82nd IETF DRAFT Agenda

On 10/27/11 16:48 , Xing Li wrote:
> Due to the IPv4 address depletion, more and more IPv4/IPv6 translators
> are being deployed. We need a guideline for representing
> non-IPv4-translatable address as the source address in ICMP packets.
> Based on our operation experience, allocating a special IPv4 //24 is a
> reasonable choice. If we can move forward, there will be enough time for
> ISPs to update the filters.

with the properties for utilization described in the draft there'd be no
way in hell I'd accept these on the ingress to my network.

> Regards,
> 
> xing
> 
>>
>> Regards,
>> RayH
>>
>>> Subject:
>>> Re: [v6ops] Fwd: 82nd IETF DRAFT Agenda
>>> From:
>>> Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
>>> Date:
>>> Wed, 26 Oct 2011 07:32:35 -0400
>>>
>>> To:
>>> Xing Li <xing@cernet.edu.cn>
>>> CC:
>>> "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>, V6ops Chairs
>>> <v6ops-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
>>>
>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding:
>>> quoted-printable
>>> Precedence:
>>> list
>>> MIME-Version:
>>> 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
>>> References:
>>> <20111013211312.B6C7421F8AFF@ietfa.amsl.com>
>>> <619C3B81-1CDC-4341-8180-EC8472864CC0@cisco.com>
>>> <4EA53FB7.6090603@cernet.edu.cn>
>>> In-Reply-To:
>>> <4EA53FB7.6090603@cernet.edu.cn>
>>> Message-ID:
>>> <C8B7882E-F8F0-4E65-AC5C-D8CDA24DC0EC@kumari.net>
>>> Content-Type:
>>> text/plain; charset=utf-8
>>> Message:
>>> 1
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 24, 2011, at 6:36 AM, Xing Li wrote:
>>>
>>>   
>>>> > Hi, Fred and All,
>>>> > 
>>>> > 于 2011/10/14 5:52, Fred Baker 写道:
>>>>     
>>>>> >> The initial version of the agenda has been posted. It places v6ops on Wednesday and Friday mornings, a total of 4.5 hours. I personally am satisfied with it, but if folks have issues I can pass them along.
>>>>> >> 
>>>>> >> I'll note that the deadline for -00 drafts is 24 October, and the deadline for updated drafts is a week later. For discussion in the working group meetings, I'm looking for a draft posted after 25 July, with supporting email discussion on the list.
>>>>> >> 
>>>>> >> I'm looking for (and in some cases have seen) commentary on each of:
>>>>> >> 
>>>>> >> -rw-rw-r--  1 fred  fred  13796 Jul 25 23:59 draft-xli-v6ops-ivi-icmp-address-00.txt
>>>>>       
>>>> > 
>>>> > I would like to request that the V6ops WG adopt draft-xli-v6ops-ivi-icmp-address-00.txt as a WG adoption.
>>>> > 
>>>> > The draft describes the operational considerations of mapping ICMPv6 packets through an RFC6145 gateway where the IPv6 address is not directly translatable into an IPv4 address, and requests an IANA Special Purpose IPv4 address allocation (192.70.192.0/24) to allow this address mapping to take place using a protocol-specific designated address block in IPv4.
>>>> > 
>>>>     
>>>
>>> Summary:
>>> I support adoption.
>>>
>>> More words: 
>>> I must admit to being somewhat uncomfortable with the potential for using this space to hide that actual course of a DoS -- yes, this is somewhat addressed in the Security Considerations, but that doesn't actually remove the problem.
>>> That said, the sad fact is that with so many networks not doing BCP38 you already have no faith in the source address of a packet IMO the benefits outweigh the risks.
>>>
>>> W
>>>
>>>   
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops