Re: [v6ops] JANOG34 provides 3.2.1 and 3.2.2

["Liubing (Leo)" <[e-mail]>]

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.
- 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.
- 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.) 

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.