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

[Tassos Chatzithomaoglou <[e-mail]>]

Just to add to everyone else that expressed the desire to see DS-Lite in this, i totally agree with them.
We recently run an RFP looking for IPv6 CPEs from various vendors and nobody of them had a official version supporting it.
We even got answers from vendors (that are very active inside IETF), that they are not planning to implement it.
So having a standard RFC "pushing" them in that direction is always welcome.

Regarding PCP, i would also like to have it as a basic requirement. But i can live with the assurance that when finished, it will be added (maybe somewhere else).
Currently, we are planning to enable DS-Lite only to subscribers that have all port forwarding methods disabled in their CPE, so we can "bypass" a need for it.
But as the number of subscribers grows, we'll surely need a way to make port forwarding (+other stuff) work in CGN.

As a sidenote, i WOULD like to see in this draft just a section referring to PCP (like 8.5 in RFC 6333), if PCP requirements are going to be left out from this.



Also, i would like to make some other comments on draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis-00.


In G-2 & L-14, ICMP should be changed to ICMPv6.

   6RD-3:  If the CE router implements 6rd functionality, it MUST allow
           the user to specify whether all IPv6 traffic goes to the 6rd
           Border Relay, or whether other destinations within the same
           6rd domain are routed directly to those destinations.  

   6RD-3:  If the CE router implements 6rd functionality, it MUST allow
           the user to specify whether all IPv6 traffic goes to the 6rd
           Border Relay, or whether IPv6 traffic towards other destinations within the same
           6rd domain is routed directly to those destinations.  

More specifically,
   Dual-Stack-Lite encapsulates IPv4 traffic inside an IPv6 tunnel at
   the IPv6 CE Router and sends it to a Service Provider Address Family
   Translation Router (AFTR).

More specifically,
   Dual-Stack-Lite encapsulates IPv4 traffic inside an IPv6 tunnel at
   the IPv6 CE Router and sends it to a Service Provider Address Family
   Transition Router (AFTR).

   DLW-2:  If the IPv6 CE Router implements DS-Lite functionality, the
           CE Router MUST support using a DS-Lite DHCPv6 option
           [http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis-00#ref-I-D.ietf-softwire-ds-lite-tunnel-option" rel="nofollow">I-D.ietf-softwire-ds-lite-tunnel-option] to configure the
           DS-Lite tunnel.  The IPv6 CE Router MAY use other mechanisms
           to configure DS-Lite parameters.  Such mechanisms are outside
           the scope of this document.

   DLW-2:  If the IPv6 CE Router implements DS-Lite functionality, the
           CE Router SHOULD support using a DS-Lite DHCPv6 option
           [RFC 6334] to configure the
           DS-Lite tunnel.  The IPv6 CE Router MAY use other mechanisms
           to configure DS-Lite parameters.  Such mechanisms are outside
           the scope of this document.

RFC 6333 says that the DS-Lite DHCPv6 option is a SHOULD.
"7.1. Normative References" should be updated with the RFC number too

   Run the following four in parallel to provision CPE router
   connectivity to the Service Provider:

   1.  Initiate IPv4 address acquisition.

   2.  Initiate IPv6 address acquisition as specified by [http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6204" title='"Basic Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers"' rel="nofollow">RFC6204].

   3.  If 6rd is provisioned, initiate 6rd.

   4.  If DS-Lite is provisioned, initiate DS-Lite.

I can't see how all four can run in parallel.

   Run the following two in parallel to provision CPE router
   connectivity to the Service Provider:

   1.  Initiate IPv4 address acquisition.

   2.  Initiate IPv6 address acquisition as specified in Section 4.2.

   Then,
   
   If IPv4 address acquisition is successful and 6rd is provisioned, initiate 6rd.

   If IPv6 address acquisition is successful and DS-Lite is provisioned, initiate DS-Lite.

Lastly, i would also like to have the following under "4.5. Security Considerations". Unless we are leaving this functionality to the AFTR/BR (although i couldn't find anything relevant; PCP?).

S-3:  The IPv6 CE router MUST support the configuration of a common filtering behavior, regardless of the interface type that traffic is coming through (native or through a transition/tunneling technology).

-- 
Tassos