IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] IETF Working Group Agenda Analysis

Gábor LENCSE <lencse@hit.bme.hu> Tue, 15 October 2019 19:06 UTC

Return-Path: <lencse@hit.bme.hu>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8A7A120123 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 12:06:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 z-UwKoAdFtZN for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 12:06:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frogstar.hit.bme.hu (frogstar.hit.bme.hu [IPv6:2001:738:2001:4020::2c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F26D2120046 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 12:06:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.43.80] (netacc-gpn-7-159-102.pool.telenor.hu [176.77.159.102]) (authenticated bits=0) by frogstar.hit.bme.hu (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x9FJ6iEZ057916 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Oct 2019 21:06:50 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from lencse@hit.bme.hu)
X-Authentication-Warning: frogstar.hit.bme.hu: Host netacc-gpn-7-159-102.pool.telenor.hu [176.77.159.102] claimed to be [192.168.43.80]
To: v6ops@ietf.org
References: <EA749954-7FC2-4DA8-9172-07BF4CDB9761@gmail.com>
From: Gábor LENCSE <lencse@hit.bme.hu>
Message-ID: <e7c533ef-06f7-6853-1218-34c1b0b26dc3@hit.bme.hu>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 21:06:39 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <EA749954-7FC2-4DA8-9172-07BF4CDB9761@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.101.2 at frogstar.hit.bme.hu
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Received-SPF: pass (frogstar.hit.bme.hu: authenticated connection) receiver=frogstar.hit.bme.hu; client-ip=176.77.159.102; helo=[192.168.43.80]; envelope-from=lencse@hit.bme.hu; x-software=spfmilter 2.001 http://www.acme.com/software/spfmilter/ with libspf2-1.2.10;
X-DCC--Metrics: frogstar.hit.bme.hu; whitelist
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 152.66.248.44
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/vfQzZKfCYceYsnuf84G8ThRnbys>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] IETF Working Group Agenda Analysis
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 19:06:58 -0000

Dear Fred,

Thank you for taking care for all drafts, including our one:

>> 2019-07-06	draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison (tracker) <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison> (HTML) <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison> (thread) <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?qdr=a&q=%22draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison%22> (diffs) <https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-lmhp-v6ops-transition-comparison-03.txt>

Unfortunately I cannot promise a significant update until the cut date 
of IETF 106. However, I do not want to abandon it at all, and I plan to 
add a section about the performance analysis of the 5 IPv4aaS 
technologies according to the methodology described in RFC 8219.

Although our results are not visible yet, several people are working on 
this topic. When I was in Japan, I did SIIT (also called stateless 
NAT64) performance measurements, by which I tested the feasibility of 
the benchmarking methodology described in RFC 8219. Unfortunately, the 
DPDK based measurement program written by my PhD student proved to be 
completely unusable, and though I could do some quick fix and I could 
use it in a limited way, I decided to completely re-implement it. Now, I 
am very close to finish it and release siitperf as a free software.

Since September, I have an MSc student, who is working on an RFC 8219 
compliant DS-Lite Tester. He has experience in DPDK, and I hope that he 
can do it in one semester. (Perhaps, he will extend his tester for the 
other technologies in the next semester, but it is his decision, if he 
is willing to do so.)

I also have two new PhD students: one of them focuses on the comparison 
of the 5 IPv4aaS technologies in several aspects, and the other one 
deals with the security issues of IPv6 transition technologies.

So even slowly, but we are progressing. I plan to include some of our 
results into our draft before IETF 107.

Best regards,

Gábor

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email