Re: [v6ops] Update of RFC 7084 -- Re: Slides from AWS, SAP, ESnet, Dell in side meeting and call for volunteers on 3 research topics

Hello,

My preference for updating 7084 would be the following changes:

   - Update RFC references (8200/8201/8415/8504)
   - Prefix Delegation LAN (???)
   - Remove Transition text (6RD/DS-Lite) and reference RFC 9096
   - MUST Ingress Filtering (Anti-Spoofing)1)
   - EUI-64 WAN interfaces are a bad idea.

I think we need to be careful with scope creep on the update to 7084.

I'm reaching out to the original authors now to see if any of them want
involvement.

~Tim

On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 6:38 AM Xipengxiao <xipengxiao@huawei.com> wrote:

> Hi Ole, Ted, Gabor, Brian,
>
>
>
> I think IPv4aaS is a different way to say IPv6-only.  So I don't follow
> the logic that "IPv4aaS would belong in a IPv4 CE document. Not in an IPv6
> one".  But I will search the mail archive to find out why some people
> thought that way (or some key points for my education will be appreciated).
>
>
>
> Regarding update of 7084 and 8585, here is my thinking：
>
>
>
>    1. Let's separate this "requirements for IPv6 CPE" draft from an "IPv6
>    BCP" draft (to be started).  Recommending 464XLAT that Ted/Brian asked for
>    can go to the BCP draft if getting enough support.
>    2. We do want to minimize changes as Gabor/others suggested.  So if we
>    can reference 9313 or other RFCs, let's reference them.  But I prefer
>    including the IPv4aaS requirements as a section in this new draft to create
>    a single requirement document.
>    3. Personally, I agree with Ted to reduce IPv4aaS options in the
>    requirement document.  For example, of the IPv4aaS options listed by Gabor,
>    I don’t believe MAP-E and Lw4o6 have ever been deployed so I would be happy
>    to leave them out.  But if this will cause too much debate, I suggest we
>    just reference 9313 and 8585 to keep the status quo, and leave this debate
>    to the BCP draft.  The main purpose to update 7084 this time is to advise
>    against EUI-64 to deal with the privacy issue reported by MAPrg.  Other
>    purposes should be handled in an opportunistic way (i.e. if we can get them
>    we get them, if not we don’t insist).
>
>
>
> Thanks and regards,
>
>
>
> XiPeng
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: v6ops <v6ops-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: Sunday, August 6, 2023 10:52 PM
> To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>; Gábor LENCSE <lencse@hit.bme.hu>
> Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Update of RFC 7084 -- Re: Slides from AWS, SAP,
> ESnet, Dell in side meeting and call for volunteers on 3 research topics
>
>
>
> On 07-Aug-23 07:24, Ted Lemon wrote:
>
> > That’s what I was getting at when I said we might not be ready. I don’t
> think we should require anything if we don’t have a specific thing to
> require. Requiring half a dozen different things will make people not want
> to use the RFC.
>
>
>
> However, RFC 9313 doesn't provide a simple decision tree for an operator,
> or a set of valid use cases. I'd like to see that somewhere. Possibly in
> draft-ietf-v6ops-framework-md-ipv6only-underlay or possibly not in an RFC
> at all.
>
>
>
>      Brian
>
>
>
> >
>
> > Op zo 6 aug 2023 om 14:39 schreef Gábor LENCSE <lencse@hit.bme.hu
> <mailto:lencse@hit.bme.hu>>
>
> >
>
> >     Dear Ted,
>
> >
>
> >     8/6/2023 8:18 PM keltezéssel, Ted Lemon írta:
>
> >     [...]
>
> >      > Personally I think that we should decide what to recommend if we
>
> >      > specify IPv4aas. 8585 mentions numerous options. This doesn’t feel
>
> >      > like something that should be in a router requirements document. I
>
> >      > suspect we have enough operational experience at this point to
> make a
>
> >      > specific recommendation; probably NAT64/464xlat. If we aren’t
> ready to
>
> >      > do that, I don’t think we’re ready to include this in 7084bis.
>
> >      >
>
> >     I do not think that a draft that recommends any one of the five
> IPv4aaS
>
> >     solutions (464XLAT, DS-Lite, Lw4o6, MAP-E, MAP-T) as THE GOOD
> SOLUTION
>
> >     will achieve consensus.
>
> >
>
> >     In RFC 9313, we followed the approach that we analyzed the pros and
> cons
>
> >     of all the above five solutions and left the decision to the network
>
> >     operators. It was not only a tactic to get our draft published. I
>
> >     honestly believe that depending on various circumstances, one of them
>
> >     can be the most appropriate solution in one case, and another one
> can be
>
> >     more suitable in another case.
>
> >
>
> >     So my suggestion is that if 7084bis will be done then it should not
>
> >     elaborate much about IPv4aaS, but is should talk about the general
>
> >     router requirements plus regarding the IPv4aaS solutions, it should
> cite
>
> >     RFC 8585 and say that all five solutions should be supported by the
> CEs,
>
> >     and also cite RFC 9313 as a guideline that helps the operators to
> choose
>
> >     the one that is most appropriate for their specific case.
>
> >
>
> >     What do you think?
>
> >
>
> >     Best regards,
>
> >
>
> >     Gábor
>
> >
>
> >     _______________________________________________
>
> >     v6ops mailing list
>
> >     v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org <v6ops@ietf.org>>
>
> >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops <
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________
>
> > v6ops mailing list
>
> > v6ops@ietf.org
>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> v6ops mailing list
>
> v6ops@ietf.org
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>