Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis

[Alain Durand <[e-mail]>]

Hemant,

I believe the issues around PCP not being ready are overstated. We have a document (-15) ready for another round of wg last call to be started this week.

Alain.



On Oct 19, 2011, at 8:22 AM, Hemant Singh (shemant) wrote:

DS-Lite folks,

Both you and Barbara have said rfc6204bis has to be out ASAP including shooting for an RFC by end of this year.   Cmon, now, Barbara is on PTO and she’s had to reply during her time off!   PCP has issues if PCP does not support REC-48 from RFC 6092.   I agree with Barbara.  If PCP will delay rfc6204bis due to DS-Lite, we have no choice but to yank out DS-Lite too.   We have guidance from the v6ops Chair to send the document to the IESG ASAP.   We are already one month behind.    What is it going to be?  DS-Lite included with no PCP or DS-Lite out since PCP just is not near closure?    This thrashing has to stop.

Hemant

From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of STARK, BARBARA H
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 5:43 PM
To: Weil, Jason; james woodyatt; IPv6 Operations
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis

In the 6204bis document, I’m only willing to consider the UPnP proxy + WAN-side PCP. There are so many other uses of PCP, that I think it would drag us down a rat-hole to try to specify all the other places where PCP would need to be supported. And since there’s no indication as to level of support of PCP in LAN devices, I can’t support its recommendation at this time for LAN-side use. That needs to be a homenet topic. But I’d only support this PCP requirement if PCP really were ready to become an RFC. And it sounds like it isn’t anywhere near to being ready. It sounds like there are people who feel like there are a number of issues to address.

I need 6rd now. If 6204bis is going to be hijacked by those who want to describe all possible uses of PCP and insist on waiting for all issues around PCP to be resolved, then let’s just forget about it, and let me figure out some non-IETF way to get out the message for 6rd. If others want to wait a year or two to do some comprehensive transition technology document, then y’all have at it. I’ve got more pressing matters to deal with (like getting the word out now on 6rd). It sounds like there’s also a need to get out the word out on DS-Lite requirements. I’m happy to include DS-Lite with 6rd, because DS-Lite has stable RFCs. But if PCP is an absolute requirement for DS-Lite (WAN-side? LAN-side? simple-security? NAT46? NAT64? NAT44? – I really wish proponents of PCP would be extremely specific as to which aspect of PCP they need, because when they aren’t specific, I can only assume they want it all, which I’m not ready to support), then I’m not happy to include DS-Lite. Because (1) if there’s a need for all LAN clients to support PCP or UPnP in order for DS-Lite to be usable, then DS-Lite must be a long way off, and (2) it sounds like publication of a PCP RFC is a long way off.

My question to the DS-Lite proponents is:
Would you support DS-Lite requirements in a 6204bis without PCP requirements?

If your answer is “No”, then I think it’s time for me to get 6rd requirements published elsewhere. I’ve wasted too much time with the expectation that IETF would be a good venue for these 6rd CE router requirements, so I’d really like for there to be a decision soon.
Barbara

From: Weil, Jason [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 5:11 PM
To: james woodyatt; IPv6 Operations
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis

Fwiw my only interest in PCP today is to satisfy REC-48 type functionality in a native Dual-stack CPE Router with an IPv6 firewall enabled. We are specifying RFC6092 functionality today for home gateways and the two options on the table to allow applications to signal their requirements to firewall are (I thought) PCP and UPnP.  If PCP isn’t ready to do this functionality fairly soon then it is becomes mostly  useless in my book and I will have to look elsewhere for that functionality. If it is close and we can get it included in 6204bis, it would make sense to wait for it.

Thanks,

Jason

From: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of james woodyatt
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 2:41 PM
To: IPv6 Operations
Cc: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>; [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
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.

One of the things that would help here is for the PCP working group to stop thinking that their job is done after they specify how ports are mapped for translation and address amplification with NAT44 and NAT64 and to start remembering that their draft actually purports to explain how PCP can meet REC-48 of RFC 6092 as well.  Every time I bring up a point that shows how their draft falls down on that point, they complain that nobody cares about IPv6 CPE routers, or transports other than TCP and UDP, or this, that or the other thing, and tell me they plan to fix it in the next round of RFC development.  Fortunately, the chair and the technical editor of the draft seem to be paying attention to the problems, but I do *NOT* feel at all comfortable that the community of PCP implementers is ready to consider simple security in IPv6 CPE routers.

I am very concerned that IPv6 CPE router vendors will rush out devices that contain early reference implementations of PCP, because it is standards track, but have simple security functions that are *MUCH* less transparent than the Informational category RFC 6092 recommends.  If this happens, then PCP servers in these ubiquitous and sure-to-never-be-upgraded home gateways will establish a conventional restriction on the transparency of IPv6 residential service that unnecessarily mimics the brokenness of IPv4/NAPT.  We should endeavor to avoid the possibility of a disaster like that, if at all possible, and I'm sensing a significant resistance to that concern among an influential cadre of PCP working group participants and implementers.

Therefore, I'd prefer that any update to RFC 6204 either wait for PCP to be revised appropriately in a second RFC, or that it not contain any recommendation for a PCP server at all.  Alternatively, the stakeholders in RFC 6204 could engage more directly with the PCP working group, so that Keith Moore and I are not the only ones speaking up in the defense of your interests.


--
james woodyatt <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
member of technical staff, core os networking



________________________________
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.