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

[<[e-mail]>]

Re-,

It does not make sense to use the same text for the following reasons:

* NAT64 deployments do not require explicit configuration of the NAT64 instance to use at the CPE/host side, while in DS-Lite the configuration of the AFTR is required.
* Packets from the host embedding the CLAT are native IPv6 packets, so PCP requests will just fly as native IPv6 packets. The situation is different for DS-Lite because IPv4 user traffic is encapsulated over IPv6 to the AFTR.  

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : v6ops [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
> Envoyé : vendredi 27 avril 2018 12:26
> À : V6 Ops List
> Objet : Re: [v6ops] draft-palet-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas discussion
> 
> Agree, it makes sense.
> 
> I don't know if other operators are using also the same approach when using
> NAT64. May be nobody considered, but I think it will make sense to have the
> same text as well?
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> 
> 
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: <[e-mail]>
> Fecha: viernes, 27 de abril de 2018, 11:21
> Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>, V6 Ops List
> <[e-mail]>
> Asunto: RE: [v6ops] draft-palet-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas discussion
> 
>     Re-,
> 
>     Thank you.
> 
>     For DS-Lite, you may mention the following :
>     - when no PCP server is configured, the CPE assumes by default that the
> AFTR is the PCP server.
>     - a plain IPv6 mode is used to send PCP requests to the server.
> 
>     This is how PCP is deployed today for DS-lite. It is worth to have it
> documented.
> 
>     Cheers,
>     Med
> 
>     > -----Message d'origine-----
>     > De : v6ops [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de JORDI PALET
> MARTINEZ
>     > Envoyé : vendredi 27 avril 2018 11:04
>     > À : V6 Ops List
>     > Objet : Re: [v6ops] draft-palet-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas discussion
>     >
>     > 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.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > 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