Last Modified: 2004-09-22
Done | Publish Cellular Deployment Scenarios as a WG I-D | |
Done | Publish Unmanaged Network Deployment Scenarios as a WG I-D | |
Done | Publish Survey of IPv4 Addresses in IETF Standards as WG I-D | |
Done | Publish Cellular Deployment Solutions as a WG I-D | |
Done | Publish Unmanaged Network Deployment Solutions as a WG I-D | |
Done | Submit Cellular Deployment Scenarios to IESG for Info | |
Done | Submit Unmanaged Network Deployment Scenarios to IESG for Info | |
Done | Publish Enterprise Deployment Scenarios as a WG I-D | |
Done | Submit Survey of IPv4 Addresses in IETF Standards to IESG for Info | |
Done | Publish ISP Deployment & Solutions as a WG I-D | |
Done | Submit Cellular Deployment Solutions to IESG for Info | |
Done | Submit Transition Mechanisms to IESG for PS | |
Done | Submit IPv6 Neighbor Discovery On-Link Assumption to IESG for Info | |
Done | Submit Dual Stack IPv6 on by Default to IESG for Informational | |
Done | Submit Unmanaged Network Deployment Solutions to IESG for BCP | |
Done | Submit ISP Deployment Scenarios & Solutions to IESG for Info | |
Done | Submit Application Aspects of IPv6 Transition to IESG for Informational | |
Done | Submit 6to4 Security Analysis to IESG for Informational | |
Done | Submit Enterprise Deployment Scenarios to IESG for Info | |
Done | Submit Renumbering Procedures to IESG for Info | |
Aug 04 | Submit Assisted Tunneling Requirements to IESG for Info | |
Sep 04 | Publish Enterprise Deployment Solutions as a WG I-D | |
Dec 04 | Submit IPv6-in-IPv4 Tunneling using IPsec to IESG for Info | |
Feb 05 | Submit IPv6 Security Overview to IESG for Info | |
Feb 05 | Submit Enterprise Deployment Solutions to IESG for BCP |
RFC | Status | Title |
---|---|---|
RFC3574 | I | Transition Scenarios for 3GPP Networks |
RFC3750 | I | Unmanaged Networks IPv6 Transition Scenarios |
RFC3789 | I | Introduction to the Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Standards |
RFC3790 | I | Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Internet Area Standards |
RFC3791 | I | Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Routing Area Standards |
RFC3792 | I | Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Security Area Standards |
RFC3793 | I | Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Sub-IP Area Standards |
RFC3794 | I | Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Transport Area Standards |
RFC3795 | I | Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Application Area Standards |
RFC3796 | I | Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Operations & Management Area Standards |
RFC3904 | I | Evaluation of Transition Mechanisms for Unmanaged Networks |
v6ops WG Minutes of IETF61
========================== Wednesday 10th November -- 0900-1130 ------------------------------------ CHAIRS: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi> Jonne Soininen <jonne.soininen@nokia.com> The minutes were edited by Pekka Savola from notes taken by Florent Parent, Juha Wiljakka and Steve Silverman. Tim Chown provided Jabber transcript. There were over ??? folk in attendance. AGENDA: Introduction, doc status, agenda bashing, 5 mins, Chairs Enterprise Analysis Discussion, 15 mins, Bound Discussion of the way forward - 30 mins, Chairs/WG IPv6 Network Architecture Protection, 10 mins, Van de Velde Reason to Deprecate NAT-PT, 15 mins, Davies ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in Broadband, 15 mins, Popoviciu IPv6 Fix: an activity to solve barriers to IPv6 transition, 7-10 mins, Tatuya Discussion of Teredo IETF LC comments, 5 mins, Huitema IPv6 Security Overview - 5-7 mins, Davies Things to think about when renumbering, 5-7 mins, Thompson IP Mobility Scenarios discussion, 5 mins, Gustafsson MINUTES: * Introduction, agenda bashing, document status - 5 mins, Chairs/Savola - Scribes! (Jabber also?) SLIDES: <00_v6ops-agenda.pdf> * Enterprise Analysis Discussion, 15 mins, Bound - draft-ietf-v6ops-ent-analysis-00.txt - GOAL: discuss issues, so that the revision can be WGLC'ed SLIDES: <01-ent-analysis.pdf> Tim Chown: Why isn't 6to4 being used. Jim Bound: because of the 6to4 prefix. Brian Carpenter: Would be delighted if we did not need 6to4: Then IPv6 is being used. Dave Green: using 6to4 for experimentation. Most what to use current address Using translation. Will need ALG for v4 only - v6 only Alain Durand: What is the case of IPv6 application communicating with IPv4 application (except for IPv6 SIP node talking to IPv4 SIP node)? Dave Green: No. Remi Despres: Main reason for NAT-PT is handling IPv6 <-> IPv4 applications. Legacy host with only IPv4 address cannot reply to IPv6 node. Pekka Savola: this scenario has not been discussed so much in the wg - needs to be clarified, but seems to be out of scope. Jim Bound: Don't want to go there in ent scenarios. Stay dual-stack. Remi Despres: But will get to point when v4 address no longer assigned Bernard Tuy: DSTM is the right solution. Brian Carpenter: I am also a NAT-PT hater, but there are applications where performance critical. ALG will not scale. (eg. iSCSI). Brian Carpenter: Focusing document good. Agrees with first statement in presentation Jim Bound: Comments on DSTM: we have not promoted DHCPv4 to do the IPv4 address allocation. Tim Chown: analysis on what is missing (tools) in ent scenario. Will that be taken elsewhere? Jim Bound: non-normative references can be used as input (tunnel broker, TEP discovery, etc.) Jonne Soininen: Let's talk that during the "way forward" discussion. * Discussion of the way forward - 30 mins, Chairs/WG SLIDES: <02-way-forward.pdf> David Kessens: Real important thing for this wg is the v6ops charter. Protocol work in INT area. This WG not right forum to decide that. Want to have quick progress. Hesham Soliman: Mobility: will this go under OPS or INT? Jonne Soininen: new WG will work on new protocol only. Analysis should be done in mobility issue. Hesham Soliman: mobility issue is not OPS issue. 2-3 different documents looking at this. Where to adopt this stuff? here? new WG? Pekka Savola: new WG specifically focused. V6ops could only take a document on scenarios. Hesham Soliman: suggest if new WG created around known solution only, doesn't make sense. Kurtis Lindqvist: 1st part (tunneling wg) makes sense, 2nd part (v6ops) is quite weak. "Provide a forum for IPv6 ops" -- is this the NANOG IPv6 group? Need to keep v6ops open? Alain Durand: is v6ops going to be a nursary of new WG spinoffs? David Kessens: don't ask questions, propose what you want it to be. :) Alain Durand: v6ops more effective if focused on deliverables, issues found in protocol, document them. ex: campus deployment TJ Kniveton: concered if already a vision on new protocol. Need to look at current mechs. If this is envisioning one solution to fit all, other wg that need such mech will come up with their own. Jonne Soininen: but v6ops not the place for that. (protocols) Jim Bound: v6ops started about scenarios/analysis. Fine. ... Jonne Soininen: We did analysis. Now know what we need. Pekka Savola: We know about at least one need. Jonne Soininen: Some solutions are already in advanced stage, don't need wg. (Teredo, 6PE). Maybe new wg need for mobility issue. Maybe, maybe not. Jim Bound: If someone has good idea on mechanism, no place in IETF to work on this. Unacceptable. David Kessens: hard to reach concensus in wg. Conclude that milestones are reached and move on to work on other stuff. Jim Bound: Some people have have vendor agenda and have won Jonne Soininen: we don't want to work on analysis anymore, but focused WG to work on protocols. Aim is to move forward. Jim Bound: "dishonored" 2 times. Christian Huitema: Understand where Jim comes from. v6ops experiment. IESG has used the process to slow down transition development. Have to learn from that. Cannot turn clock back. Tony Hain: If new WG created and individual don't have fair hearing, not moving forward. Will additional WGs be approved to work mechanisms? David Kessens: No Internet AD here? The problem is that we are going to do this in Internet area, not my area. Margaret Wasserman: (walks in) point is to create appropriate WG or move into existing ones. If WG decide that tunneling work is required, no problem. Can avoid BOF if possible. SLIDES: <03_v6ops-dow-diff.html> Remi Despres: Difference between describing the problem and solution, but less difference between identifying the solution and describing it. Goals is restricting too much the WG. Pekka Savola: comments received that we could not go forward since current charter too broad. Tim Chown: Multicast operation. Where does it fit? Margaret Wasserman: Supports idea of new charter. More we could do in application advise. Don't like putting hard rules (don't work on foo). Too restrictive. Used to be: have a problem, lets do a mechanism. Need analyse first. Dave Thaler: Reword the IPsec usage with IPv6-in-IPv4 tunneling. Making v6ops like a mini-bof for new WG. Will this be a precedent? Margaret Wasserman: Impossible to say. Case by case basis. BoF not required so not bypassing anything. David Kessens: good idea to get v6ops out of the way. Should spend more time on tunneling charter. Have Margaret input on it. Tony Hain: Where will all work go? Things dropped off charter should be taken by all other WG (very wg should be considering IPv6). Not sure that IESG is supporting that. Pekka Savola: Pushing work to some other wgs has been happening already. Tim Chown: other wg may come up with their own method for tunneling. One way is better than 6-7 different ones. Need to take care of that. Pekka Savola: I created mailing list for mobility issues. Kurtis Lindqvist: Why not give IPv6 tunnels using IPsec to IPsec wg? Why is "v6" in wg titles. The longer we keep this "boundary"... Look in other WG if many work could be move over there. David Kessens: agrees. Should no do other WGs' work for them. Jordi: Have good work that has been ignored by security group. Pekka: difficult to tell why no feedback from sec. folks. Can't tell whether there's no time or whether it's a bad idea. Having a BoF might help. SLIDES: <04_v6tc-charter.txt> Karen Nielsen: what to do with all the tunneling requirements? Pekka Savola: we'll get to asking that later. Brian Carpenter: first paragraph clumsy. Make it more clear based on input. Showing hands, is the proposal for the way forward clear enough? YES: many hands Few hands raised on "somewhat confused" Jim Bound: Not clear on how to add things. David Kessens: Can be done. Room for change. Alexandru Petrescu: not clear how mobility is handled. Jonne Soininen: confusion on how to start new work. AD should clarify that if work needed, new Bof can be started. Margaret Wasserman: This wg cannot make a new wg, but I am interested to hear the opinion of this wg. Margaret Wasserman: don't want v6ops as mechanism to start new WGs. Talk to chairs, ADs on how to start new WG. Nothing in this WG change any of that. Jonne Soininen: Don't need justification from v6ops to start new work. After this, the WG was asked again whether the plan was clearer now. Only a couple of hands indicated that it was still unclear, so it was considered clear enough. Alain Durand: We want to ask separately about refocusing and new WG. Showing hands, do we want to create new focused WG for tunnel server? Only a couple of people against, very large majority for. Jordi: Create new WG *if* it can be done quickly Christian Huitema: question of trust on WG and AD. Restrict v6ops to do ops only and block possibility to do protocol work. Otherwise, if new WG don't work, v6ops charter restricted. Were stuck. Margaret: Don't do work when no consensus. Community decide if work will be done or not. No problem to create new tunneling wg. Perry Metzger: pathetic that we argue on such administrative item for the past hour. Alain Durand: good that "ban" on existing protocol work is lifted. Jordi Palet: Change way were managing the WG, not fair, serialized. David Kessens: the proposal now is about this, the WG is too big, this gets it more focused. Jonne Soininen: should we recharter v6ops? limit only on operational issues. Remi Despres: Question should be "restricting more that just removing tunneling protocol work" Brian Carpenter: lets just vote. Show of hands, a very large number for yes, only a couple for no. Showing hands: should we recharter v6ops to do only operational issues? - rough consensus to start rechartering, <5 persons were against Jonne Soininen: (from the last slide) What to do with the tunneling requirements? Alain Durand: the new WG, obviously. Margaret Wasserman: Takes over 2 weeks. So what? Create mailing list and start work now . Alain Durand: let's trust and move on from analysis paralysis Jonne Soininen: (Not decided here, let's move on.) * Goals for Zero-Configuration Tunneling in 3GPP, 1 min, Nielsen * Generic Zero-Configuration Tunneling, 10 mins, Palet These two items were skipped because there was already been sufficient discussion on the topic. * IPv6 Network Architecture Protection, 10 mins, Van de Velde - draft-vandevelde-v6ops-nap-00.txt - GOAL: introduce and start the discussion about v4 NAT alternatives in IPv6 SLIDES: <05_v6ops-nap.pdf> Alain Durand: unclear on the topology hinding using routing. Pascal Thubert: MIPv6 and ULA for care of address so only home address visible. Tim Chown: good work. Should be part of this wg. Show of hands for the interest in the WG. Very significant interest, no opposition. WG adoption to be asked later. * Reason to Deprecate NAT-PT, 15 mins, Davies - draft-aoun-v6ops-natpt-deprecate-00.txt - GOAL: 5 mins presentation, 10 mins trying to decide next steps SLIDES: <06-natpt-deprecate.pdf> Pekka Savola: IMS case not clear. Jonne Soininen: 3GPP has not identified need for NAT-PT. Some ALG probably. Alain Duranda: People have impression that want to deprecate all translation. Be careful in wording. Deprecate 2766. Tony Hain: Lack of scenario doesn't mean it is not being built. Reality is that people are building it. Suggest separating scenarios discussion from the issues discussion. Elwyn Davies: do you have specific scenarios? Tony Hain: yes, to be taken offline. Clients are forced work a particular path which is not ideal. Christian Huitema: Good argument that 2677 is not good. Move to experimental. Finding this in customer procurements. Pekka Savola: support that. Senthil Sivakumar: Using 2766 without DNS-alg and it works well. Pekka Savola: but many scenarios, where this is also being deployed, require dns-alg. Tony Hain: But other tools are stuck, so no alternative. Remi Despres: where will the tools be discussed? Pekka Savola: not this wg. If sufficient community support, can discussed and a BoF could be done. Show of hands, should we move NAT-PT to experimental? Yes: a very larger numbery, no: one. * ISP IPv6 Deployment Scenarios in Broadband Access Networks, 15 mins, Popoviciu - draft-asadullah-v6ops-bb-deployment-scenarios-01.txt - GOAL: get feedback; gauge interest and the direction SLIDES: <09_bbdeploy.pdf> Show of hands who read draft. Less than half a dozen. Will need more review. Show of hands if this is the right approach? Some, none against. * IPv6 Fix: an activity to solve barriers to IPv6 transition, 7-10 mins, Tatuya - A new WIDE project to fix practical IPv6 deployment issues - GOAL: inform the WG of activities, solicit the interested people SLIDES: <08_v6fix.pdf> Pekka Savola: Very important work for IPv6 deployment, contact Jinmei and their project. Discussion of Teredo IETF LC comments, 5 mins, Huitema - draft-huitema-v6ops-teredo-02.txt - GOAL: describe and discuss the important IETF LC comments SLIDES: <09_teredo-lc.pdf> (The slides didn't show due to computer problems.) IPv6 Security Overview - 5-7 mins, Davies - draft-savola-v6ops-security-overview-03.txt - GOAL: talk about differences, solicit more feedback Ran out of time, not presented. Things to think about when renumbering, 5-7 mins, Thompson - draft-chown-v6ops-renumber-thinkabout-00.txt - GOAL: introduce the draft, solicit feedback for next revision Ran out of time, not presented. IP Mobility Scenarios discussion, 5 mins, Gustafsson - draft-larsson-v6ops-mip-scenarios-00.txt - GOAL: update from the IP mobility scenarios/requirements discussion Ran out of time, not presented. -END- |