Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis
"Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com> Sat, 22 October 2011 20:26 UTC
Return-Path: <shemant@cisco.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 4266021F84FA for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 13:26:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.711
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.711 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.288, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 vmyEM1JOn9PE for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 13:26:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 191A221F84B0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 13:26:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=shemant@cisco.com; l=7264; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1319315176; x=1320524776; h=mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date: message-id:in-reply-to:references:from:to; bh=fVzrVpuQFvkmPAZDckA70X7S8WLzGrn9pI0QwMn3Y90=; b=VdfFC0AGcRTG0khzDV2pRzQ59JgfE8OUWC64hS9ryXqIM0WhfrU3EF4C 2Hfb64EJlThwnXrr82Rp5t4GyWQF/Ib5YdlWJ9yKYDpvCfptjypdqWDRp sPiDosbvsXKype7f0/IDSJ6onWrqy6L1LdcLaTCWg0tSXqOBj8bYcfKcN M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AsEAAP8lo06tJV2d/2dsb2JhbABDmU6PQoEFgW4BAQEEAQEBDwEdCjQXBAIBCA4DAQMBAQEKBgYBEAEGASYfAwYIAQEEARIIGodmlXsBnR6FLAGCMmEEiAaROIxE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,391,1315180800"; d="scan'208";a="30304994"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Oct 2011 20:26:15 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-102.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-102.cisco.com [72.163.62.139]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9MKQFOS026350; Sat, 22 Oct 2011 20:26:15 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-109.cisco.com ([72.163.62.151]) by xbh-rcd-102.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:26:15 -0500
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 15:26:13 -0500
Message-ID: <5B6B2B64C9FE2A489045EEEADDAFF2C3031FD84D@XMB-RCD-109.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4EA274CA.9090108@globis.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis
Thread-Index: AcyQjsG5f6qONr8QSRmAbB8xq5IYEgAaQq1A
References: <4EA274CA.9090108@globis.net>
From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <shemant@cisco.com>
To: Ray Hunter <v6ops@globis.net>, v6ops@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Oct 2011 20:26:15.0549 (UTC) FILETIME=[D91912D0:01CC90F8]
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: Sat, 22 Oct 2011 20:26:17 -0000
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] 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] 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 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