Re: [v6ops] JANOG34 provides 3.2.1 and 3.2.2

[Shishio Tsuchiya <[e-mail]>]

Leo
(2014/06/30 13:10), Liubing (Leo) wrote:
> Hi Shishio,
> 
> Thanks much for sharing the information. It's great that JANOG34 will provide more experience of using ULAs.
> 
> Basically I agree with Fred that it is important to see whether the statements of the draft is correct. In addition to Fred's comments, I have some other concerns:
> - Is it easy to configure a host with ULA+PA? E.g., both through SLAAC or through SLAAC/DHCPv6 respectively.

This is good point.
I will confirm about how to assign ipv6 address to users.

> - Are there still many hosts using the old address selection algorithm [3484]? Since [RFC3484] hosts will face the problem of selecting un-expected ULA-PA source/destination address pairs.

Yes, this is the most interesting for me.
If we can confirm a lot of client it would be great implementation report of RFC3484.


> - Let me confirm the ULA-only Deployment in JANOG34, did you mean "connect to the Internet through ULA-only" or "ULA-only in an isolated network or for internal use only"? (The 3.2.1 of the draft specifically means the former.)

"connect to the Internet through ULA-only"
I think we can check utilization of tcp port for each of client on CGN.

Regards,
-Shishio



> 
> Best regards,
> Bing
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Fred Baker (fred) [mailto:[e-mail]]
>> Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2014 8:58 AM
>> To: Shishio Tsuchiya (shtsuchi)
>> Cc: Liubing (Leo); [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [v6ops] JANOG34 provides 3.2.1 and 3.2.2
>>
>>
>> On Jun 27, 2014, at 3:27 AM, Shishio Tsuchiya <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> Leo and v6ops
>>> F.Y.I
>>> JANOG(JApan Network Operator's Group) decided to provide ula address
>> to the JANOG34 conference network.
>>> http://www.janog.gr.jp/en/index.php?JANOG34_Meeting
>>>
>>> They will provide 3.2.1. ULA-only Deployment and 3.2.2. ULA along with
>> GUA.
>>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations-02
>>>
>>> If you would like to confirm something on the network , please let me
>> know.
>>
>> Thanks for this.
>>
>> I would expect that the key things to prove are the statements in the draft.
>> Also, any observations that might come up would be useful. For example,
>> was it fair to say that the network that was isolated remained isolated? Did
>> using a ULA and a GUA on a globally-accessible network cause any issues?
>> What, if anything, was necessary in the router(s) in question to prevent hosts
>> from using ULA source addresses to connect to GUA addresses? Did hosts in
>> fact form both ULA and GUA-based addresses and use them appropriately
>> when connecting to applications inside and outside the network?
>>
>> What one might hope would be that ULA-based addresses were used to
>> connect to other ULA-based addresses, as their bit strings were most similar,
>> and GUA-based addresses were used to connect to other GUA-based
>> addresses, for the same reason. One might hope that ULA prefixes were not
>> announced in BGP without needing extra thought, and that if they were
>> announced, they were not accepted. One might further hope that when a
>> ULA was not announced into a neighboring domain, a packet sent to the ULA
>> prefix didn't cross the domain boundary.
>>
>> Of course, we need to hear about any extra work that was required, and any
>> problems that arose. And we need to understand if the deployment of a ULA
>> prefix necessarily implied the deployment of an IPv6/IPv6 NAT or NAPT. I
>> don't expect that it will and am certainly not asking for it to, but that
>> expectation has been promoted.
>>
>> JANOG will be Wednesday-Friday the week before IETF 90, and v6ops will
>> meet Monday and Tuesday. It would be nice if someone could make a point
>> of reporting on the experiment.
> .
>