RE: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6ops-incremental-cgn
"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Fri, 15 May 2009 12:22 UTC
Return-Path: <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 105953A6BD2 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 May 2009 05:22:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.307, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_23=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DtkkiH9PNfDh for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 May 2009 05:21:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3515C3A691E for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 15 May 2009 05:21:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1M4wMo-0004F3-Gz for v6ops-data0@psg.com; Fri, 15 May 2009 12:18:22 +0000
Received: from [130.76.32.69] (helo=blv-smtpout-01.boeing.com) by psg.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>) id 1M4wMb-0004Dg-GI for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Fri, 15 May 2009 12:18:15 +0000
Received: from slb-av-01.boeing.com (slb-av-01.boeing.com [129.172.13.4]) by blv-smtpout-01.ns.cs.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/8.14.0/SMTPOUT) with ESMTP id n4FCHufA023335 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 15 May 2009 05:17:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from slb-av-01.boeing.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by slb-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/DOWNSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id n4FCHuMG010308; Fri, 15 May 2009 05:17:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-nwbh-11.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.55.84]) by slb-av-01.boeing.com (8.14.0/8.14.0/UPSTREAM_RELAY) with ESMTP id n4FCHuiB010305; Fri, 15 May 2009 05:17:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com ([130.247.54.35]) by XCH-NWBH-11.nw.nos.boeing.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 15 May 2009 05:17:56 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6ops-incremental-cgn
Date: Fri, 15 May 2009 05:17:54 -0700
Message-ID: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A105F0726E@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <000001c9d502$9843c980$5b0c6f0a@china.huawei.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6ops-incremental-cgn
Thread-Index: AcnU5mVhVUExpoQ6QPymR0u6p7FkcQAADJ8wAAZUSSAAFZ3dIA==
References: <39C363776A4E8C4A94691D2BD9D1C9A105F0719F@XCH-NW-7V2.nw.nos.boeing.com> <000001c9d502$9843c980$5b0c6f0a@china.huawei.com>
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: Sheng Jiang <shengjiang@huawei.com>, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org, guoseu@huawei.com, "Fleischman, Eric" <eric.fleischman@boeing.com>, "Russert, Steven W" <steven.w.russert@boeing.com>, Rémi Després <remi.despres@free.fr>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 May 2009 12:17:56.0296 (UTC) FILETIME=[2DBC5C80:01C9D557]
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>
Hi Sheng, > -----Original Message----- > From: Sheng Jiang [mailto:shengjiang@huawei.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 7:12 PM > To: Templin, Fred L; 'Brian E Carpenter' > Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org; guoseu@huawei.com; Fleischman, Eric; Russert, Steven W; 'Rémi Després' > Subject: RE: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6ops-incremental-cgn > > Fred, > > Thanks for your comments. > > Although I can agree on you the disadvantages of anycast, anycast has its > advantages and suitable scenarios, too. Furthermore, I don't think 6rd > depends on anycast. Remi may give us clarification. As near as I can tell, the contribution of 6rd is the definition of a "stateless" prefix delegation mechanism; everything else is just intra-site tunneling, and 6rd would do well to look at the ISATAP/VET mechanisms that already handle this. Thanks - Fred fred.l.templin@boeing.com > However, our draft does no intend to make judge of 6rd, or other tunnel > techonogies. We actually would like to list serveral suitable tunnel > techonogies with brief introductions in order to complete our puzzle. As we > ready state in the draft, "ISATAP or VET are also be considered." Actually, > one thing we can do for next version is to expand this section a little bit, > to include brief introductions for Auto GRE, ISATAP and VET. However, we > also think 6rd is suitable and do not want to rule it out. > > Best regards, > > Sheng > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com] > > Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 7:02 AM > > To: Brian E Carpenter > > Cc: Sheng Jiang; v6ops@ops.ietf.org; guoseu@huawei.com; > > Fleischman, Eric; Russert, Steven W; Rémi Després > > Subject: RE: New Version Notification for > > draft-jiang-v6ops-incremental-cgn > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 3:50 PM > > > To: Templin, Fred L > > > Cc: Sheng Jiang; v6ops@ops.ietf.org; guoseu@huawei.com; Fleischman, > > > Eric; Russert, Steven W; Rémi Després > > > Subject: Re: New Version Notification for > > > draft-jiang-v6ops-incremental-cgn > > > > > > Fred, > > > > > > (My previous message was somewhat inscrutable. See in-line.) > > > > > > On 2009-05-15 03:17, Templin, Fred L wrote: > > > > Dear authors, > > > > > > > > The document is clean and concise, which is appreciated. > > > > However, section 3.2 seems to be showing preference toward a > > > > particular tunneling technology, and I'd like to understand that > > > > better. > > > > > > > > To understand this, we must first observe that the 6rd approach > > > > relies on anycast for CPE router accessing of > > > > IPv6 routers within the IPv4 ISP network. The idea of anycast was > > > > entertained and abandoned by the ISATAP team in the 2001/2002 > > > > timeframe when ISATAP was still being developed in the ngtrans > > > > working group. This came after much discussion among authors and > > > > guidance from the working group. Reasons include: > > > > > > > > 1) if the tunnel fragments, fragments of the same packet > > > > may go to different anycast-addressed routers. > > > > > > > > 2) with anycast, there is no opportunity for default > > > > router selection (when there are multiple) > > > > > > > > 3) with anycast, there is no opportunity for traffic > > > > engineering > > > > > > > > 4) with anycast, IPv6 neighbor discovery over the > > > > tunnel may yield unpredictable results > > > > > > When I look at the 6rd draft, I don't really see why the > > relay needs > > > to be anycast - as far as I can see it could be genuinely unicast > > > (since there is no semantic difference for the CPE or the > > relay; it's > > > only anycast if the ISP sets up its IGP to make it anycast). > > > So the real question is how the CPE knows the 6rd relay > > address, which > > > is also a question for RFC3056. There are of course many possible > > > answers to that, e.g. a DHCP(v4) option. > > > > ISATAP and VET already have answers for that ([RFC5214], > > Sections 8.3.2 and 9). If 6rd wants to do the same thing, it > > would just be re-inventing the wheel. > > > > > Personally I think a provisioned unicast address may be better, > > > because of your points 1-4. > > > > Provisioned unicast addresses are already the subject matter > > for ISATAP/VET Potential Router List (PRL) initialization. Is > > a new spec needed? > > > > > > 5) with anycast, there is need for a manual provisioning > > > > of IPv6 prefixes and IPv4 anycast address on the CPE > > > > router. > > > > > > Which IPv6 prefixes? The CPE builds its IPv6 prefix from > > its external > > > IPv4 address, which it gets in the traditional way. > > > > The CPE needs to learn the provider's IPv6 prefix reserved > > for 6rd purposes. Unless there is some form of automated > > discovery (e.g., PIOs in RAs), the IPv6 prefix would need to > > be manually provisioned. > > > > > > We next observe that the 6rd mechanism is rooted in a customized > > > > IPv6 prefix configuration that embeds an > > > > IPv4 address. First, this would require that a quite large IPv6 > > > > prefix (e.g., a /24) be delegated to the ISP were its > > customers to > > > > obtain even a /56 as the largest possible prefix. Such a prefix > > > > would be used only sparsely, as only a small portion of the IPv4 > > > > address space may be available for assignment to CPE routers. > > > > > > Yes. Are we running out of /24s yet? > > > > Are we running out of /24s? I really don't know. Do I know > > waste when I see it? I think so. > > > > > > Secondly, the only mode of operation afforded is > > > > Provider-Aggregated, i.e., there is no provision for CPE use of > > > > Provider-Independent prefixes. > > > > > > Yes. I would expect this method to be used for SOHO > > subscribers, not > > > for larger customers who might use PI. > > > > But, do you know what the service model will look like > > 5-10yrs down the line? (Maybe coexisting wireless broadband > > and cable modem?) Do you even know what a SOHO network will > > look like 5-10yrs down the line? > > PI is as some point going to become attractive to enterprises > > of any size - not necessarily just the big ones. > > > > > > I suspect you know where I'm going with this, but take > > each of the > > > > deficiencies named above and apply VET, and you will see that VET > > > > robustly covers all of these cases and more. Indeed, with > > VET as the > > > > phase 1 deployment, there would be no need for a phase 2, and no > > > > need for any IPv6 readdressing as VET uses unmodified > > IPv6 prefixes > > > > natively. > > > > > > > > The VET model asks only that CPE routers become VET enterprise > > > > border routers, that CGNs become VET enterprise border > > gateways, and > > > > that the ISP name service be provisioned with resource > > records for > > > > border gateway discovery. In other words, the VET > > deployment touches > > > > exactly the same CPE/PE equipment that the 6rd approach > > touches, and > > > > VET asks only that the ISP network administrators add a > > few resource > > > > records to the DNS. If there are doubts as to how VET > > satisfies each > > > > of these use cases, I will be happy to explain in follow-up. > > > > > > I don't see this for SOHO subscribers using $50 CPEs, > > frankly, but I > > > could be wrong. > > > > Let's just have an awareness about this up front. Then, we > > will have to explain to the customers years down the line why > > we copped out and gave them a moped when they could have had a 'VET. > > > > Fred > > fred.l.templin@boeing.com > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Brian > > > > > > > > > > > In your section 3.6, we note a strong recommendation for a tunnel > > > > MTU of at least 1500 bytes and I concur with this recommendation. > > > > Were that not the case, customer devices would be constantly > > > > inconvenienced with excessive ICMP PTB messages reporting > > degenerate > > > > MTUs for crossing the ISP network. We also note that SEAL > > uniquely > > > > and correctly provides the tunnel 1500 MTU assurance that > > > > incremental cgn is seeking, and moreover note that larger MTUs > > > > (e.g., 9K) are robustly and naturally discovered when customer > > > > devices request them. Please see also RANGER Scenarios > > (RANGERS) for > > > > additional insight into the application of VET and SEAL > > into the ISP > > > > network problem space: > > > > > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-russert-rangers > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-autoconf-dhcp > > > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-templin-seal > > > > > > > > Fred > > > > fred.l.templin@boeing.com > > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: Sheng Jiang [mailto:shengjiang@huawei.com] > > > >> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 5:44 PM > > > >> To: v6ops@ops.ietf.org > > > >> Cc: guoseu@huawei.com; brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com > > > >> Subject: FW:New Version Notification for > > > > draft-jiang-v6ops-incremental-cgn > > > >> Dear all, > > > >> > > > >> A revised version of draft-jiang-v6ops-incremental-cgn has been > > > > submitted to > > > >> v6ops WG. It had been represented by Brian Carpenter in v6ops > > > >> meeting > > > > in > > > >> IETF 74 as draft-jiang-incremental-cgn-00 and received positive > > > > comments > > > >> also modification comments. We have integrated these > > comments into > > > > this > > > >> version. > > > >> > > > >> Please review and comments on it. Many thanks. > > > >> > > > >> Best regards, > > > >> > > > >> Sheng > > > >> > > > >>> Filename: draft-jiang-v6ops-incremental-cgn > > > >>> Version: 00 > > > >>> Staging URL: > > > >>> > > http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-jiang-v6ops-incremental-cgn-00.txt > > > >>> > > > >>> Title: An Incremental Carrier-Grade NAT > > > >>> (CGN) for IPv6 Transition > > > >>> Creation_date: 2009-05-08 > > > >>> WG ID: Indvidual Submission > > > >>> Number_of_pages: 11 > > > >>> Abstract: > > > >>> Global IPv6 deployment was slower than originally > > expected in the > > > >>> last ten years. As IPv4 address exhaustion gets closer, the > > > >>> IPv4/IPv6 transition issues become more critical and > > complicated. > > > >>> Host-based transition mechanisms are not able to meet the > > > >>> requirements while most end users are not sufficiently > > expert to > > > >>> configure or maintain these transition mechanisms. > > Carrier Grade > > > >>> NAT with integrated transition mechanisms can simplify the > > > >>> operation of end users during the > > > >>> IPv4/IPv6 migration or coexistence period. This > > document proposes > > > >>> an incremental Carrier-Grade NAT (CGN) solution for > > > >>> IPv6 transition. > > > >>> It can provide IPv6 access services for IPv6-enabled > > end hosts and > > > >>> IPv4 access services for IPv4 end hosts while remaining most of > > > >>> legacy IPv4 ISP networks unchanged. It is suitable for > > the initial > > > >>> stage of IPv4/IPv6 migration. Unlike CGN alone, it also > > supports > > > >>> and encourages transition towards dual-stack or IPv6-only ISP > > > >>> networks. > > > >>> > > > >>> Submitter: Sheng Jiang (shengjiang@huawei.com) > > > >>> > > > >>> Author(s): > > > >>> Sheng Jiang, shengjiang@huawei.com Dayong Guo, > > guoseu@huawei.com > > > >>> Brian Carpenter, brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> Comment: > > > >>> Replacement for draft-jiang-incremental-cgn-00 > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
- FW:New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6ops… Sheng Jiang
- RE: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6op… Templin, Fred L
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6op… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6op… Brian E Carpenter
- RE: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6op… Templin, Fred L
- RE: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6op… Sheng Jiang
- RE: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6op… Templin, Fred L
- RE: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6op… Templin, Fred L
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6op… Rémi Després
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6op… Rémi Després
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6op… Rémi Després
- RE: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6op… Templin, Fred L
- RE: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6op… Templin, Fred L
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6op… Rémi Després
- RE: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6op… Templin, Fred L
- RE: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6op… Templin, Fred L
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6op… Gert Doering
- RE: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6op… Templin, Fred L
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6op… Gert Doering
- Re: RE: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-… JiangSheng 66104
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6op… Mark Townsley
- Re: RE: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-… Mohacsi Janos
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6op… Seiichi Kawamura
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6op… Rémi Després
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6op… Mohacsi Janos
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6op… JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6op… JiangSheng 66104
- Re: RE: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-… JiangSheng 66104
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6op… Rémi Després
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6op… Mark Townsley
- RE: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6op… Templin, Fred L
- RE: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6op… Templin, Fred L
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6op… Mohacsi Janos
- Re: RE: RE: New Version Notification for draft-ji… JiangSheng 66104
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6op… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6op… Mohacsi Janos
- RE: New Version Notification for draft-jiang-v6op… Templin, Fred L
- RFC4890 question (was: RE: New Version Notificati… Templin, Fred L
- Re: RFC4890 question (was: RE: New Version Notifi… Mohacsi Janos
- draft-jiang-v6ops-incremental-cgn Brian E Carpenter
- Re: draft-jiang-v6ops-incremental-cgn Fred Baker
- RE: draft-jiang-v6ops-incremental-cgn Templin, Fred L
- Re: draft-jiang-v6ops-incremental-cgn Fred Baker
- RE: draft-jiang-v6ops-incremental-cgn Templin, Fred L
- Re: draft-jiang-v6ops-incremental-cgn Brian E Carpenter