Re: [v6ops] draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment and draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison

Hi Gabor,
Thanks a lot for your support and for the suggestion regarding IPv6 security.
We will have a look at your paper and revise our security part.
I think we can also highlight the main points from https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-opsec-v6-24#section-2.7

Regards,

Giuseppe

From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Gabor LENCSE
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 4:35 PM
To: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment and draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison

Dear All,

I have read draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment-02 and I found it useful and I support its adoption.

I have found a typo at the bottom of page 18:

"Yet, this worsening effect may appeae as disturbing for a plain transition to IPv6." --> "Yet, this worsening effect may appear as disturbing for a plain transition to IPv6."

Regarding IPv6 Security in Section 11.4, I think it is also worth considering the additional security issues brought into existence by the applied IPv6 transition technologies used to implement IPv4aaS, like 464XLAT, DS-Lite, etc. You can find some basic hints in our paper:

G. Lencse and Y. Kadobayashi, "Methodology for the identification of potential security issues of different IPv6 transition technologies: Threat analysis of DNS64 and stateful NAT64", Computers & Security (Elsevier), vol. 77, no. 1, pp. 397-411, August 1, 2018, DOI: 10.1016/j.cose.2018.04.012

Available from: http://www.hit.bme.hu/~lencse/publications/ECS-2018-Methodology-revised.pdf

As for our draft, draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison-06, I am working on an RFC 8219 compliant performance measurement tool to be able to add relevant data to Section 5 about Performance Comparison. I have just prepared the very much alpha state version of a stateful NAT64 tester, by enabling siitperf for stateful tests: https://github.com/lencsegabor/siitperf/tree/stateful

It is capable of benchmarking both stateful NAT64 and stateful NAT44 (CGNAT) implementations. Its documentation is to be updated yet, but I am glad the help, if any you would like to use it.

Best regards,

Gábor

p.s.: I have corrected the subject line, as I think Fred intended to include both drafts in it.
On 3/27/2021 1:05 PM, Xipengxiao wrote:

Hi All,

I support the adoption of both drafts, as they provide (1) useful information about the current deployment status of IPv6, and (2) useful information for operators to consider while deploying IPv6.   With almost 500 IPv6-related RFCs, it's difficult for IPv6-deployers to find all the relevant information.  So these summary-and-advice types of  documents are useful for our industry at this stage.

XiPeng

-----Original Message-----

From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Fred Baker

Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 5:58 AM

To: v6ops@ietf.org<mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>

Cc: draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison@ietf.org<mailto:draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison@ietf.org>; draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-

deployment@ietf.org<mailto:deployment@ietf.org>

Subject: [v6ops] draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment and draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-

deployment

On Mar 19, 2021, at 1:39 AM, Paolo Volpato <paolo.volpato@huawei.com><mailto:paolo.volpato@huawei.com>

wrote:

For lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison, on behalf of the authors of draft-vf-

v6ops-ipv6-deployment I can say we are in favor of the WG adoption. Not

only is it a good description of the transition technologies to IPv6, but it also

constitutes a basis for our draft.

OK, let me put this to the working group. We asked about adoption of draft-

lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison once before (in January 2020), and got

essentially no response. It has come up on the list twice since, in July and in

November. The authors of draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-deployment would like to see

it adopted. The two sets of authors are disjoint. I therefore have at least nine

people that would like to see us adopt and publish it. What other folks have

opinions, pro or con?

Along the same lines, are there opinions regarding the adoption of draft-vf-

v6ops-ipv6-deployment?

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?qdr=a&q=%22draft-lmhp-v6ops-

transition-comparison%22

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?qdr=a&q=%22draft-vf-v6ops-ipv6-

deployment%22

_______________________________________________

v6ops mailing list

v6ops@ietf.org<mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops