Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Mon, 02 November 2015 09:58 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86DA21A066C for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 01:58:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.983
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.983 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yIvqoCvQxl6B for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 01:58:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cirse-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.142]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A94B1A06E9 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 01:58:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse.extra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.4) with ESMTP id tA29whTK017079 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 10:58:43 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id BAF2320141A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 11:04:09 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id B16A0200D11 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 11:04:09 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([132.166.84.5]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id tA29w8NF026183 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 10:58:12 +0100
To: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <D25D5920.C914E%Lee.Howard@twcable.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <563733AF.4010509@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2015 18:58:07 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <D25D5920.C914E%Lee.Howard@twcable.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/tg_-d2-ddnlCTNNfF7Blze1UCzM>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations - work or abandon?
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2015 09:58:47 -0000

Hello,

I would like to continue working on this draft.

I am not sure what is needed to continue working on this draft?  Is it
ready to go as is?

The ULAs I consider are (1) in the core of enterprise PA+ULA network
slowly migrating to IPv6 and (2) in vehicles at manufacturing time.

In an enterprise network, I wonder whether ULAs coexist well with IPv4
on a same VLAN, or must they be each on its own VLAN?  Such as to leave
IPv4 continue exist well.  I think a recommendation on this is very
valuable, at least to me.

Also, I wonder whether simply adding ULAs on interfaces of a well-known
router means that it will automatically turn on NAT66? (or not?)   Will
the packets addressed to them from a PA-part of the enterprise network
be dropped by default?

More generally - what is the precise knob which blocks ULA-addressed
packets from leaking to the Internet?  Is this a matter of a routing
protocol knob, like e.g. BGP having a definition of an area around ULAs?
  Or is it a matter of on/off knob which allows/disallows reaching a ULA
in the network attached to a particular interface?  Or does it only
depend of a trivial static route being present or absent in the forward
information base?

For ULAs in a vehicle, it is a bit early to describe the problems and
the needed advice, but I speculate there will be a need for this.  We
have several drafts and implementations on this topic.

Alex

Le 02/11/2015 18:17, Howard, Lee a écrit :
> This document hasn¹t had any revisions or discussion in a while. Is
> there anyone interested in working on it?
>
> If we do not hear any interest, we will abandon this draft.
>
> Thanks, Lee
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>