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

[<[e-mail]>]

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