From brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Wed Oct 5 14:35:19 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: shim6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: shim6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D39DB11E80C4 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 14:35:19 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.57 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.57 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.029, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id On3ebtDlu46k for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 14:35:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3656411E80C2 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 14:35:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qadb12 with SMTP id b12so2094133qad.31 for ; Wed, 05 Oct 2011 14:38:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=2MmSy43I0bB95onjbAzEuc+IL+TcJbsMG0rtjMYPK9Q=; b=CZzNf/YZPJzVKnrdOotf2S+nGesNatoQI8GVc/Sb5IIL3d6Z9mKuKR24NSxx8KOmE0 Tex8TX9y6a/fkdJiv1Pdm/MIZHdjekcicgKcHY7iqXV7KEwYkYPrK1lJgheUXOfCx32Z ahGp6mjKsel6Qea8sqrrW8ymhTsrkNMt/7OwA= Received: by 10.224.198.196 with SMTP id ep4mr2219564qab.237.1317850707803; Wed, 05 Oct 2011 14:38:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [130.216.38.124] (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz. [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id gu10sm3660259qab.2.2011.10.05.14.38.23 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 05 Oct 2011 14:38:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E8CCE44.3070808@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 10:38:12 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat@tools.ietf.org References: <20110901110629.557.88536.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <20110901110629.557.88536.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: shim6-wg Subject: Re: [shim6] I-D Action: draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-00.txt X-BeenThere: shim6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SHIM6 Working Group Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 21:35:19 -0000 Hi, Thanks for updating this draft. I have one suggestion and then some comments. The suggestion is to add a section at the end, just before the Security section, summarising the unsolved issues for shim6 deployment that can be found in the text. For example it seems that use of HBA or CGA is incompatible with using DHCPv6 for address assignment, which is probably quite a problem. (I also wonder whether the Security section should mention this.) The comment is that, clearly, exit selection is an unsolved problem. You do point out that REAP will eliminate address pairs for which correct exit selection fails, but how about the various techniques described in draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat? Also, I suspect that shim6 interactions with MIF and HOMENET need to be investigated - maybe not in this draft, but they could be mentioned as open issues. In any case I support this draft going forward to the AD quite soon. Regards Brian Carpenter On 2011-09-01 23:06, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. > > Title : Applicability Statement for the Level 3 Multihoming Shim Protocol (Shim6) > Author(s) : Joe Abley > Marcelo Bagnulo > Alberto Garcia-Martinez > Filename : draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-00.txt > Pages : 22 > Date : 2011-09-01 > > This document discusses the applicability of the Shim6 IPv6 protocol > and associated support protocols and mechanisms to provide site > multihoming capabilities in IPv6. > > > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-00.txt > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > > This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-00.txt > _______________________________________________ > I-D-Announce mailing list > I-D-Announce@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html > or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > From gih@apnic.net Wed Oct 5 17:08:47 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: shim6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: shim6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7663321F8D68 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 17:08:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -96.694 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-96.694 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_D=0.765, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, HELO_EQ_IP_ADDR=1.119, RCVD_IN_XBL=3.033, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QX4WRvZzbOAD for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 17:08:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp.apnic.net (asmtp.apnic.net [IPv6:2001:dc0:2001:11::199]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 197AA21F8D67 for ; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 17:08:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.30.2.10] (149.16.80.200.host.ifxnw.com.ar [200.80.16.149]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by asmtp.apnic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B20A7B673D; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 10:11:51 +1000 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Geoff Huston In-Reply-To: <4E8CCE44.3070808@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 11:11:45 +1100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <0F889496-574D-4598-8F34-FDE63593F4CF@apnic.net> References: <20110901110629.557.88536.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4E8CCE44.3070808@gmail.com> To: Brian E Carpenter X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3) Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat@tools.ietf.org, shim6-wg Subject: Re: [shim6] I-D Action: draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-00.txt X-BeenThere: shim6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SHIM6 Working Group Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 00:08:47 -0000 as an ex-wg chair of a now-wound-up wg, sending this to the AD quite soon makes sense to me as well Geoff On 06/10/2011, at 8:38 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Hi, >=20 > Thanks for updating this draft. I have one suggestion and then some = comments. >=20 > The suggestion is to add a section at the end, just before the = Security > section, summarising the unsolved issues for shim6 deployment that can = be > found in the text. For example it seems that use of HBA or CGA is > incompatible with using DHCPv6 for address assignment, which is = probably > quite a problem. (I also wonder whether the Security section should > mention this.) >=20 > The comment is that, clearly, exit selection is an unsolved problem. > You do point out that REAP will eliminate address pairs for which > correct exit selection fails, but how about the various techniques > described in draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat? > Also, I suspect that shim6 interactions with MIF and HOMENET need > to be investigated - maybe not in this draft, but they could be > mentioned as open issues. >=20 > In any case I support this draft going forward to the AD quite soon. >=20 > Regards > Brian Carpenter >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > On 2011-09-01 23:06, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: >> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts = directories. >>=20 >> Title : Applicability Statement for the Level 3 = Multihoming Shim Protocol (Shim6) >> Author(s) : Joe Abley >> Marcelo Bagnulo >> Alberto Garcia-Martinez >> Filename : draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-00.txt >> Pages : 22 >> Date : 2011-09-01 >>=20 >> This document discusses the applicability of the Shim6 IPv6 = protocol >> and associated support protocols and mechanisms to provide site >> multihoming capabilities in IPv6. >>=20 >>=20 >> A URL for this Internet-Draft is: >> = http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-00.tx= t >>=20 >> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: >> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ >>=20 >> This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: >> = ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-00.txt= >> _______________________________________________ >> I-D-Announce mailing list >> I-D-Announce@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce >> Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html >> or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt >>=20 > _______________________________________________ > shim6 mailing list > shim6@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shim6 -- Geoff Huston Chief Scientist, APNIC +61 7 3858 3100 gih@apnic.net From alberto@it.uc3m.es Mon Oct 10 07:38:26 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: shim6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: shim6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A95D821F8BD8 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 07:38:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CkOi2UUkcE8S for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 07:38:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (smtp01.uc3m.es [163.117.176.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A972C21F8BCB for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 07:38:25 -0700 (PDT) X-uc3m-safe: yes Received: from BOMBO (unknown [163.117.139.71]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp01.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2335AC286CB; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 16:38:24 +0200 (CEST) From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Alberto_Garc=EDa?= To: "'Brian E Carpenter'" , References: <20110901110629.557.88536.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4E8CCE44.3070808@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4E8CCE44.3070808@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 16:38:26 +0200 Message-ID: <00fb01cc875a$4500f9c0$cf02ed40$@it.uc3m.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQF6MuyKnjxZ9u1YMfQAvTlLPOjHXgJ+sXlTlf/UMHA= Content-Language: es X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3116-6.8.0.1017-18440.007 Cc: 'shim6-wg' Subject: Re: [shim6] I-D Action: draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-00.txt X-BeenThere: shim6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SHIM6 Working Group Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 14:38:26 -0000 Hi Brian, Thanks for your suggestion + comments. Answers inline... | -----Mensaje original----- | De: shim6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:shim6-bounces@ietf.org] En nombre | de Brian E Carpenter | Enviado el: mi=E9rcoles, 05 de octubre de 2011 23:38 | Para: = draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat@tools.ietf.org | CC: shim6-wg | Asunto: Re: [shim6] I-D Action: = draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-00.txt | =20 | Hi, | =20 | Thanks for updating this draft. I have one suggestion and then some | comments. | =20 | The suggestion is to add a section at the end, just before the = Security | section, summarising the unsolved issues for shim6 deployment that = can be | found in the text. For example it seems that use of HBA or CGA is Well, I'm not really convinced that summarising the unsolved issues = would be good for the document. I think the whole document is a contextualized discussion of=20 - advantages,=20 - unsolved issues and=20 - things that could be solved but are not yet,=20 around Shim6 operation. I'm not sure that extracting the issues (without = its explanation) in a section would improve readability.=20 | incompatible with using DHCPv6 for address assignment, which is = probably | quite a problem. (I also wonder whether the Security section should | mention this.) This issue is described in some detail in section 3.3, in which it is commented that HBAs could be easily configured by DHCP, but configuring = CGAs in this way would be problematic. (By the way, I've renamed section 3.3 = to "Address Generation and Configuration", instead of just "Address = Generation" as it was, since it also discusses configuration.) To include a comment on CGA/HBA address configuration this in the = Security Considerations section, I think the best way is to add in the third paragraph, which discusses the protection provided by the use of = CGA/HBA, the following text: 'Note that for nodes using CGA addresses, security depends on the secure handling of the private key associated to the signature and validation = of locators. In particular, any address configuration method MUST assure = that the private key remains secret, as discussed in section 3.3.'=20 | =20 | The comment is that, clearly, exit selection is an unsolved problem. | You do point out that REAP will eliminate address pairs for which = correct | exit selection fails, but how about the various techniques described = in | draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat? | Also, I suspect that shim6 interactions with MIF and HOMENET need to = be | investigated - maybe not in this draft, but they could be mentioned = as open | issues. I think this comment raises quite interesting issues. I've been browsing = the MIF, HOMENET wg documents, and draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat, and I have included = new text to address some topics related with them (or at least, topics which were inspired by reading this documents). - Regarding to exit selection, I've changed the section named 'Shim6 and Ingress Filtering' to another named 'Shim6 in Multihomed Nodes'. Now the section comments briefly the problems identified in draft-ietf-mif-problem-statement, and discusses how Shim6 could interact with some of the solutions presented in draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat. I removed the = previous discussion on a source-routing solution for exit selection, since I = think the document should not discuss solutions to problems with broader scope than Shim6. - I've added a new subsection named 'Shim6 and Firewalls' in the 'Interaction with Other Protocols and Mechanisms' section. In short, filtering based in the state created from outgoing packets is = problematic for remote nodes changing the locators. - I've added a new subsection named 'Shim6 and IPv6 NAT' after the = firewall section. In short, IPv6 NATs may allow communicating with the ULID pair (with the initial locators), but communication will break with some = cases in which locators are changed. Since there are many changes, I have generated a new version of the = draft: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-garcia-shim6-applicability/ What do you think?=20 Thanks, Alberto | =20 | In any case I support this draft going forward to the AD quite soon. | =20 | Regards | Brian Carpenter | =20 | =20 | =20 | =20 | On 2011-09-01 23:06, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: | > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts | directories. | > | > Title : Applicability Statement for the Level 3 Multihoming | Shim Protocol (Shim6) | > Author(s) : Joe Abley | > Marcelo Bagnulo | > Alberto Garcia-Martinez | > Filename : draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-00.txt | > Pages : 22 | > Date : 2011-09-01 | > | > This document discusses the applicability of the Shim6 IPv6 = protocol | > and associated support protocols and mechanisms to provide site | > multihoming capabilities in IPv6. | > | > | > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: | > = http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-0 | > 0.txt | > | > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: | > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ | > | > This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: | > = ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-00 | > .txt _______________________________________________ | > I-D-Announce mailing list | > I-D-Announce@ietf.org | > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce | > Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or | > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt | > | _______________________________________________ | shim6 mailing list | shim6@ietf.org | https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shim6 From brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Mon Oct 10 17:48:47 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: shim6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: shim6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BC8121F8C98 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 17:48:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Xsx3lk3RmuCC for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 17:48:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qy0-f179.google.com (mail-qy0-f179.google.com [209.85.216.179]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AE4B21F8C91 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 17:48:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qyk33 with SMTP id 33so5146776qyk.10 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 17:48:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=L8mEtpyjGun9US9kEVWgCXtj0NFQqtQzq2YWt1AQmmg=; b=e9Ariny5iCYWhBQ7zd0nMTVYpY+93qQaLoRQYhOLL76MDYkEbvguShBiJsHLns67Nv d1IpLRnvbR+im2lMnxdMrjFNGiI1N+/11UKj/rDBuh/DjdP11lWf0rlh6BJ9tcznA9nO qelAX+q9CT6BQvdvt6ofUxRbgtMG0pYkOSGdw= Received: by 10.229.179.165 with SMTP id bq37mr2399594qcb.193.1318294123951; Mon, 10 Oct 2011 17:48:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [130.216.38.124] (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz. [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id bz6sm25162866qab.22.2011.10.10.17.48.40 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 10 Oct 2011 17:48:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E939270.5070909@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 13:48:48 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?QWxiZXJ0byBHYXJjw61h?= References: <20110901110629.557.88536.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4E8CCE44.3070808@gmail.com> <00fb01cc875a$4500f9c0$cf02ed40$@it.uc3m.es> In-Reply-To: <00fb01cc875a$4500f9c0$cf02ed40$@it.uc3m.es> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat@tools.ietf.org, shim6@ietf.org Subject: [shim6] draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-01 X-BeenThere: shim6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SHIM6 Working Group Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 00:48:47 -0000 Hi Alberto, thanks for the new draft. Comments in line... On 2011-10-11 03:38, Alberto Garc=C3=ADa wrote: > Hi Brian, > Thanks for your suggestion + comments. > Answers inline... >=20 > | -----Mensaje original----- > | De: shim6-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:shim6-bounces@ietf.org] En nombre= > | de Brian E Carpenter > | Enviado el: mi=C3=A9rcoles, 05 de octubre de 2011 23:38 > | Para: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat@tools.ietf.o= rg > | CC: shim6-wg > | Asunto: Re: [shim6] I-D Action: draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-00.= txt > | =20 > | Hi, > | =20 > | Thanks for updating this draft. I have one suggestion and then some > | comments. > | =20 > | The suggestion is to add a section at the end, just before the Secur= ity > | section, summarising the unsolved issues for shim6 deployment that c= an be > | found in the text. For example it seems that use of HBA or CGA is >=20 > Well, I'm not really convinced that summarising the unsolved issues wou= ld be > good for the document. I think the whole document is a contextualized > discussion of=20 > - advantages,=20 > - unsolved issues and=20 > - things that could be solved but are not yet,=20 > around Shim6 operation. I'm not sure that extracting the issues (withou= t its > explanation) in a section would improve readability.=20 That's a matter of taste. One cannot tell from the list of contents which aspects lead to potential problems; since we can't assume that everybody reads every line, I think a summary of the issues would be very useful. >=20 > | incompatible with using DHCPv6 for address assignment, which is prob= ably > | quite a problem. (I also wonder whether the Security section should > | mention this.) >=20 > This issue is described in some detail in section 3.3, in which it is > commented that HBAs could be easily configured by DHCP, but configuring= CGAs > in this way would be problematic. (By the way, I've renamed section 3.3= to > "Address Generation and Configuration", instead of just "Address Genera= tion" > as it was, since it also discusses configuration.) Exactly. The details are in 3.3, for people who read everything... > To include a comment on CGA/HBA address configuration this in the Secur= ity > Considerations section, I think the best way is to add in the third > paragraph, which discusses the protection provided by the use of CGA/HB= A, > the following text: > 'Note that for nodes using CGA addresses, security depends on the secur= e > handling of the private key associated to the signature and validation = of > locators. In particular, any address configuration method MUST assure t= hat > the private key remains secret, as discussed in section 3.3.'=20 Sure, that's good. >=20 > | =20 > | The comment is that, clearly, exit selection is an unsolved problem.= > | You do point out that REAP will eliminate address pairs for which co= rrect > | exit selection fails, but how about the various techniques described= in > | draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat? > | Also, I suspect that shim6 interactions with MIF and HOMENET need to= be > | investigated - maybe not in this draft, but they could be mentioned = as > open > | issues. >=20 > I think this comment raises quite interesting issues. I've been browsin= g the > MIF, HOMENET wg documents, and > draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat, and I have included = new > text to address some topics related with them (or at least, topics whic= h > were inspired by reading this documents). > - Regarding to exit selection, I've changed the section named 'Shim6 an= d > Ingress Filtering' to another named 'Shim6 in Multihomed Nodes'. Now th= e > section comments briefly the problems identified in > draft-ietf-mif-problem-statement, and discusses how Shim6 could interac= t > with some of the solutions presented in > draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat. I removed the previo= us > discussion on a source-routing solution for exit selection, since I thi= nk > the document should not discuss solutions to problems with broader scop= e > than Shim6. I agree. This is a general problem and I am glad to see it being tackled in various other drafts. > - I've added a new subsection named 'Shim6 and Firewalls' in the > 'Interaction with Other Protocols and Mechanisms' section. In short, > filtering based in the state created from outgoing packets is problemat= ic > for remote nodes changing the locators. Good. > - I've added a new subsection named 'Shim6 and IPv6 NAT' after the fire= wall > section. In short, IPv6 NATs may allow communicating with the ULID pair= > (with the initial locators), but communication will break with some cas= es in > which locators are changed. Please please change this to refer to *prefix* translation and RFC 6296. Although that RFC is only Experimental, the idea is to show that the prefix translation (not NAPT) is all we need for IPv6. Regards Brian > Since there are many changes, I have generated a new version of the dra= ft: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-garcia-shim6-applicability/ >=20 > What do you think?=20 >=20 > Thanks, > Alberto >=20 > | =20 > | In any case I support this draft going forward to the AD quite soon.= > | =20 > | Regards > | Brian Carpenter > | =20 > | =20 > | =20 > | =20 > | On 2011-09-01 23:06, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > | > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts= > | directories. > | > > | > Title : Applicability Statement for the Level 3 > Multihoming > | Shim Protocol (Shim6) > | > Author(s) : Joe Abley > | > Marcelo Bagnulo > | > Alberto Garcia-Martinez > | > Filename : draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-00.txt > | > Pages : 22 > | > Date : 2011-09-01 > | > > | > This document discusses the applicability of the Shim6 IPv6 pro= tocol > | > and associated support protocols and mechanisms to provide site= > | > multihoming capabilities in IPv6. > | > > | > > | > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > | > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-garcia-shim6-applicabili= ty-0 > | > 0.txt > | > > | > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > | > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > | > > | > This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: > | > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-garcia-shim6-applicabilit= y-00 > | > .txt _______________________________________________ > | > I-D-Announce mailing list > | > I-D-Announce@ietf.org > | > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > | > Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or > | > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > | > > | _______________________________________________ > | shim6 mailing list > | shim6@ietf.org > | https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shim6 >=20 >=20 From alberto@it.uc3m.es Fri Oct 14 09:21:44 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: shim6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: shim6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E893B21F8BF7 for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 09:21:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 93BuT6BhtDoU for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 09:21:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (smtp01.uc3m.es [163.117.176.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E487921F8BB6 for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 09:21:43 -0700 (PDT) X-uc3m-safe: yes Received: from BOMBO (unknown [163.117.139.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp01.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEC87C2834A; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 18:21:41 +0200 (CEST) From: =?UTF-8?Q?Alberto_Garc=C3=ADa?= To: "'Brian E Carpenter'" References: <20110901110629.557.88536.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4E8CCE44.3070808@gmail.com> <00fb01cc875a$4500f9c0$cf02ed40$@it.uc3m.es> <4E939270.5070909@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4E939270.5070909@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 18:21:45 +0200 Message-ID: <004001cc8a8d$5de8a010$19b9e030$@it.uc3m.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQF6MuyKnjxZ9u1YMfQAvTlLPOjHXgJ+sXlTAndN68oCUdlb4JXmc/BA Content-Language: es X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3116-6.8.0.1017-18450.000 Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat@tools.ietf.org, shim6@ietf.org Subject: Re: [shim6] draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-01 X-BeenThere: shim6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SHIM6 Working Group Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:21:45 -0000 Hi Brian, [...] | > - I've added a new subsection named 'Shim6 and IPv6 NAT' after the | > firewall section. In short, IPv6 NATs may allow communicating with = the | > ULID pair (with the initial locators), but communication will break | > with some cases in which locators are changed. | =20 | =20 | Please please change this to refer to *prefix* translation and RFC = 6296. | Although that RFC is only Experimental, the idea is to show that the = prefix | translation (not NAPT) is all we need for IPv6. Sure. Do you think it would be enough to change the first sentence of = the 'Shim6 and IPv6 NAT' section to include a reference to RFC 6296, as = follows?: "Despite the animosity of the technical community against IPv6 NATs because of disrupting end-to-end connectivity, address translation techniques such as Network Prefix Translation [RFC6296] may be used until workable solutions to avoid renumbering or facilitate multihoming are developed [RFC5902]. We now consider the impact of IPv6 NATs in Shim6 operation." Regards, Alberto | =20 | Regards | Brian | =20 | > Since there are many changes, I have generated a new version of the | draft: | > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-garcia-shim6-applicability/ | > | > What do you think? | > | > Thanks, | > Alberto | > | > | | > | In any case I support this draft going forward to the AD quite = soon. | > | | > | Regards | > | Brian Carpenter | > | | > | | > | | > | | > | On 2011-09-01 23:06, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: | > | > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line | > | Internet-Drafts directories. | > | > | > | > Title : Applicability Statement for the Level 3 | > Multihoming | > | Shim Protocol (Shim6) | > | > Author(s) : Joe Abley | > | > Marcelo Bagnulo | > | > Alberto Garcia-Martinez | > | > Filename : draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-00.txt | > | > Pages : 22 | > | > Date : 2011-09-01 | > | > | > | > This document discusses the applicability of the Shim6 IPv6 = protocol | > | > and associated support protocols and mechanisms to provide = site | > | > multihoming capabilities in IPv6. | > | > | > | > | > | > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: | > | > | > | = http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-garcia-shim6-applicability | > | -0 | > | > 0.txt | > | > | > | > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: | > | > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ | > | > | > | > This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: | > | > | > | = ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-garcia-shim6-applicability- | > | 00 > .txt _______________________________________________ | > | > I-D-Announce mailing list | > | > I-D-Announce@ietf.org | > | > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce | > | > Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html or = > | > | ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt | > | > | > | _______________________________________________ | > | shim6 mailing list | > | shim6@ietf.org | > | https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shim6 | > | > From brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Fri Oct 14 12:31:51 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: shim6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: shim6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58B4D21F8CA0 for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:31:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.834 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.834 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.465, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IPGxNIMJPGHI for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:31:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C5FE21F8C9D for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:31:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bkas6 with SMTP id s6so660438bka.31 for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:31:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=z3erd3Y5/JcDrZ9svCvaLPXc0mGnDYL73qRiWSQBwB0=; b=WKSJSzHyii460z/jyROEdfVexHRiDLAlpDEABbJa7Phis6HiqPxhu1zBPXa5ybeUQj SOT7zn1GcpBiJ8vNT8o0wCWVByXp/vk9ILAwsj2bMnVjZmyotcCDDcIXViUYHi5NKTXg AQfrNSSzE3LYTZZC9gClPS/ORpwCSP4UfPoXM= Received: by 10.223.17.11 with SMTP id q11mr5938039faa.13.1318620706325; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:31:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.1.1.4] ([121.98.251.219]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n18sm5428187fah.2.2011.10.14.12.31.42 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:31:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E988E19.9020603@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 08:31:37 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?QWxiZXJ0byBHYXJjw61h?= References: <20110901110629.557.88536.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4E8CCE44.3070808@gmail.com> <00fb01cc875a$4500f9c0$cf02ed40$@it.uc3m.es> <4E939270.5070909@gmail.com> <004001cc8a8d$5de8a010$19b9e030$@it.uc3m.es> In-Reply-To: <004001cc8a8d$5de8a010$19b9e030$@it.uc3m.es> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat@tools.ietf.org, shim6@ietf.org Subject: Re: [shim6] draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-01 X-BeenThere: shim6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SHIM6 Working Group Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 19:31:51 -0000 Yes, thanks. It's better to point to the less harmful solution than to imply NAPTv6. Regards Brian On 2011-10-15 05:21, Alberto Garc=C3=ADa wrote: > Hi Brian, >=20 > [...] > | > - I've added a new subsection named 'Shim6 and IPv6 NAT' after the= > | > firewall section. In short, IPv6 NATs may allow communicating with= the > | > ULID pair (with the initial locators), but communication will brea= k > | > with some cases in which locators are changed. > | =20 > | =20 > | Please please change this to refer to *prefix* translation and RFC 6= 296. > | Although that RFC is only Experimental, the idea is to show that the= prefix > | translation (not NAPT) is all we need for IPv6. >=20 > Sure. Do you think it would be enough to change the first sentence of t= he 'Shim6 and IPv6 NAT' section to include a reference to RFC 6296, as fo= llows?: >=20 > "Despite the animosity of the technical community against IPv6 NATs > because of disrupting end-to-end connectivity, address translation > techniques such as Network Prefix Translation [RFC6296] may be used > until workable solutions to avoid renumbering or facilitate > multihoming are developed [RFC5902]. We now consider the impact of > IPv6 NATs in Shim6 operation." >=20 > Regards, > Alberto >=20 >=20 > | =20 > | Regards > | Brian > | =20 > | > Since there are many changes, I have generated a new version of th= e > | draft: > | > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-garcia-shim6-applicability/= > | > > | > What do you think? > | > > | > Thanks, > | > Alberto > | > > | > | > | > | In any case I support this draft going forward to the AD quite = soon. > | > | > | > | Regards > | > | Brian Carpenter > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | > | On 2011-09-01 23:06, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote: > | > | > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line > | > | Internet-Drafts directories. > | > | > > | > | > Title : Applicability Statement for the Level 3 > | > Multihoming > | > | Shim Protocol (Shim6) > | > | > Author(s) : Joe Abley > | > | > Marcelo Bagnulo > | > | > Alberto Garcia-Martinez > | > | > Filename : draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-00.txt > | > | > Pages : 22 > | > | > Date : 2011-09-01 > | > | > > | > | > This document discusses the applicability of the Shim6 IPv= 6 protocol > | > | > and associated support protocols and mechanisms to provide= site > | > | > multihoming capabilities in IPv6. > | > | > > | > | > > | > | > A URL for this Internet-Draft is: > | > | > > | > | http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-garcia-shim6-applicabi= lity > | > | -0 > | > | > 0.txt > | > | > > | > | > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: > | > | > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ > | > | > > | > | > This Internet-Draft can be retrieved at: > | > | > > | > | ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-garcia-shim6-applicabil= ity- > | > | 00 > .txt _______________________________________________ > | > | > I-D-Announce mailing list > | > | > I-D-Announce@ietf.org > | > | > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce > | > | > Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html o= r > > | > | ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt > | > | > > | > | _______________________________________________ > | > | shim6 mailing list > | > | shim6@ietf.org > | > | https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/shim6 > | > > | > >=20 >=20 From gih@apnic.net Fri Oct 14 18:04:07 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: shim6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: shim6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58E3721F8CE9 for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 18:04:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -100.898 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id z56clU9yj57B for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 18:04:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from asmtp.apnic.net (asmtp.apnic.net [IPv6:2001:dc0:2001:11::199]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B27321F8CE1 for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 18:04:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.69] (unknown [12.185.65.154]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by asmtp.apnic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A298BB66B3; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 11:03:58 +1000 (EST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1251.1) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: Geoff Huston In-Reply-To: <4E988E19.9020603@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 12:03:45 +1100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <76F5C665-EDB7-4EBE-B06E-926376ACB657@apnic.net> References: <20110901110629.557.88536.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4E8CCE44.3070808@gmail.com> <00fb01cc875a$4500f9c0$cf02ed40$@it.uc3m.es> <4E939270.5070909@gmail.com> <004001cc8a8d$5de8a010$19b9e030$@it.uc3m.es> <4E988E19.9020603@gmail.com> To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Alberto_Garc=EDa?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1251.1) Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat@tools.ietf.org, shim6-wg Subject: Re: [shim6] draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-01 X-BeenThere: shim6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SHIM6 Working Group Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 01:04:07 -0000 Frankly I think it better not to use such loaded terms in an RFC if you dropped "Despite...connectivity," from the document would it = really change anything? regards, Geoff On 15/10/2011, at 6:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > Yes, thanks. It's better to point to the less harmful solution than > to imply NAPTv6. >=20 > Regards > Brian >=20 > On 2011-10-15 05:21, Alberto Garc=EDa wrote: >> Hi Brian, >>=20 >> [...] >> | > - I've added a new subsection named 'Shim6 and IPv6 NAT' after = the >> | > firewall section. In short, IPv6 NATs may allow communicating = with the >> | > ULID pair (with the initial locators), but communication will = break >> | > with some cases in which locators are changed. >> | =20 >> | =20 >> | Please please change this to refer to *prefix* translation and RFC = 6296. >> | Although that RFC is only Experimental, the idea is to show that = the prefix >> | translation (not NAPT) is all we need for IPv6. >>=20 >> Sure. Do you think it would be enough to change the first sentence of = the 'Shim6 and IPv6 NAT' section to include a reference to RFC 6296, as = follows?: >>=20 >> "Despite the animosity of the technical community against IPv6 NATs >> because of disrupting end-to-end connectivity, address translation >> techniques such as Network Prefix Translation [RFC6296] may be used >> until workable solutions to avoid renumbering or facilitate >> multihoming are developed [RFC5902]. We now consider the impact of >> IPv6 NATs in Shim6 operation." >>=20 >> Regards, >> Alberto >>=20 >>=20 >> | =20 >> | Regards >> | Brian >> | =20 >> | > Since there are many changes, I have generated a new version of = the >> | draft: >> | > = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-garcia-shim6-applicability/ >> | > >> | > What do you think? >> | > >> | > Thanks, >> | > Alberto >> | > >> | > | >> | > | In any case I support this draft going forward to the AD = quite soon. >> | > | >> | > | Regards >> | > | Brian Carpenter >> | > | >> | > | >> | > | >> | > | From brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Fri Oct 14 20:51:03 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: shim6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: shim6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6364921F87F0 for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 20:51:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.263 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.263 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.336, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vhZIg4xmqfMw for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 20:51:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9986C21F877F for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 20:51:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by bkas6 with SMTP id s6so1061968bka.31 for ; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 20:51:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=8KN7tXzowCkv1/rzlu+mDT1dZbc4hbaf8yAVXZchtL4=; b=BIi+Ch769MHSywv0/Ysiv/z8LZb6Di3H9qRsCRzGBj8dE6hg6I7zmXwru3XKFV5G4u wMUbvI3ZuvWl6sjf4TZ/G1rPmmFHsRFpEDM2G/BkqT8tHkRI+jjRdkMW39NpyKe3zA1U +3kZ5mmFLXhoqZJ7oJeqsWdelOyDIDzLj2h3g= Received: by 10.223.6.25 with SMTP id 25mr8124624fax.14.1318650661607; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 20:51:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.1.1.4] ([121.98.251.219]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id b10sm7639051fam.1.2011.10.14.20.50.57 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 14 Oct 2011 20:51:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E99031C.7040406@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 16:50:52 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Geoff Huston References: <20110901110629.557.88536.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4E8CCE44.3070808@gmail.com> <00fb01cc875a$4500f9c0$cf02ed40$@it.uc3m.es> <4E939270.5070909@gmail.com> <004001cc8a8d$5de8a010$19b9e030$@it.uc3m.es> <4E988E19.9020603@gmail.com> <76F5C665-EDB7-4EBE-B06E-926376ACB657@apnic.net> In-Reply-To: <76F5C665-EDB7-4EBE-B06E-926376ACB657@apnic.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat@tools.ietf.org, shim6-wg Subject: Re: [shim6] draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-01 X-BeenThere: shim6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SHIM6 Working Group Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 03:51:03 -0000 Geoff, I think you're right, even though I share the animosity. Regards Brian Carpenter On 2011-10-15 14:03, Geoff Huston wrote: > Frankly I think it better not to use such loaded terms in an RFC >=20 > if you dropped "Despite...connectivity," from the document would it rea= lly > change anything? >=20 > regards, >=20 > Geoff >=20 > On 15/10/2011, at 6:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: >=20 >> Yes, thanks. It's better to point to the less harmful solution than >> to imply NAPTv6. >> >> Regards >> Brian >> >> On 2011-10-15 05:21, Alberto Garc=C3=ADa wrote: >>> Hi Brian, >>> >>> [...] >>> | > - I've added a new subsection named 'Shim6 and IPv6 NAT' after t= he >>> | > firewall section. In short, IPv6 NATs may allow communicating wi= th the >>> | > ULID pair (with the initial locators), but communication will br= eak >>> | > with some cases in which locators are changed. >>> | =20 >>> | =20 >>> | Please please change this to refer to *prefix* translation and RFC= 6296. >>> | Although that RFC is only Experimental, the idea is to show that t= he prefix >>> | translation (not NAPT) is all we need for IPv6. >>> >>> Sure. Do you think it would be enough to change the first sentence of= the 'Shim6 and IPv6 NAT' section to include a reference to RFC 6296, as = follows?: >>> >>> "Despite the animosity of the technical community against IPv6 NATs >>> because of disrupting end-to-end connectivity, address translation >>> techniques such as Network Prefix Translation [RFC6296] may be used= >>> until workable solutions to avoid renumbering or facilitate >>> multihoming are developed [RFC5902]. We now consider the impact of= >>> IPv6 NATs in Shim6 operation." >>> >>> Regards, >>> Alberto >>> >>> >>> | =20 >>> | Regards >>> | Brian >>> | =20 >>> | > Since there are many changes, I have generated a new version of = the >>> | draft: >>> | > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-garcia-shim6-applicabilit= y/ >>> | > >>> | > What do you think? >>> | > >>> | > Thanks, >>> | > Alberto >>> | > >>> | > | >>> | > | In any case I support this draft going forward to the AD quit= e soon. >>> | > | >>> | > | Regards >>> | > | Brian Carpenter >>> | > | >>> | > | >>> | > | >>> | > | >=20 From alberto@it.uc3m.es Tue Oct 18 00:36:28 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: shim6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: shim6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BC2F21F8B2A for ; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:36:28 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0hQAppb44Mkk for ; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:36:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp01.uc3m.es (smtp01.uc3m.es [163.117.176.131]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24B5621F8B28 for ; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 00:36:26 -0700 (PDT) X-uc3m-safe: yes Received: from BOMBO (unknown [163.117.139.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp01.uc3m.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3953C27C0E; Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:36:24 +0200 (CEST) From: =?UTF-8?Q?Alberto_Garc=C3=ADa?= To: "'Brian E Carpenter'" , "'Geoff Huston'" References: <20110901110629.557.88536.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4E8CCE44.3070808@gmail.com> <00fb01cc875a$4500f9c0$cf02ed40$@it.uc3m.es> <4E939270.5070909@gmail.com> <004001cc8a8d$5de8a010$19b9e030$@it.uc3m.es> <4E988E19.9020603@gmail.com> <76F5C665-EDB7-4EBE-B06E-926376ACB657@apnic.net> <4E99031C.7040406@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4E99031C.7040406@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:36:22 +0200 Message-ID: <012001cc8d68$a46eecf0$ed4cc6d0$@it.uc3m.es> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQF6MuyKnjxZ9u1YMfQAvTlLPOjHXgJ+sXlTAndN68oCUdlb4AE49CULAXSJ0g4C//X/7QIRWmqEla0e6TA= Content-Language: es X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: IMSS-7.0.0.3116-6.8.0.1017-18456.003 Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat@tools.ietf.org, 'shim6-wg' Subject: Re: [shim6] draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-01 X-BeenThere: shim6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SHIM6 Working Group Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2011 07:36:28 -0000 Hi, I've just posted a new -'unloaded'- draft version = (http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-02.= txt). I think now it should be ready to go forward. Thank you for your comments. Regards, Alberto | -----Mensaje original----- | De: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com] | Enviado el: s=C3=A1bado, 15 de octubre de 2011 5:51 | Para: Geoff Huston | CC: Alberto Garc=C3=ADa; draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without- | ipv6nat@tools.ietf.org; shim6-wg | Asunto: Re: [shim6] draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-01 | =20 | Geoff, I think you're right, even though I share the animosity. | =20 | Regards | Brian Carpenter | =20 | On 2011-10-15 14:03, Geoff Huston wrote: | > Frankly I think it better not to use such loaded terms in an RFC | > | > if you dropped "Despite...connectivity," from the document would it | > really change anything? | > | > regards, | > | > Geoff | > | > On 15/10/2011, at 6:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: | > | >> Yes, thanks. It's better to point to the less harmful solution = than | >> to imply NAPTv6. | >> | >> Regards | >> Brian | >> | >> On 2011-10-15 05:21, Alberto Garc=C3=ADa wrote: | >>> Hi Brian, | >>> | >>> [...] | >>> | > - I've added a new subsection named 'Shim6 and IPv6 NAT' = after | >>> | the > firewall section. In short, IPv6 NATs may allow | >>> | communicating with the > ULID pair (with the initial = locators), | >>> | but communication will break > with some cases in which = locators | are changed. | >>> | | >>> | | >>> | Please please change this to refer to *prefix* translation and = RFC | 6296. | >>> | Although that RFC is only Experimental, the idea is to show = that | >>> | the prefix translation (not NAPT) is all we need for IPv6. | >>> | >>> Sure. Do you think it would be enough to change the first = sentence of | the 'Shim6 and IPv6 NAT' section to include a reference to RFC 6296, = as | follows?: | >>> | >>> "Despite the animosity of the technical community against IPv6 = NATs | >>> because of disrupting end-to-end connectivity, address = translation | >>> techniques such as Network Prefix Translation [RFC6296] may be = used | >>> until workable solutions to avoid renumbering or facilitate | >>> multihoming are developed [RFC5902]. We now consider the = impact | of | >>> IPv6 NATs in Shim6 operation." | >>> | >>> Regards, | >>> Alberto | >>> | >>> | >>> | | >>> | Regards | >>> | Brian | >>> | | >>> | > Since there are many changes, I have generated a new version = of | >>> | the | >>> | draft: | >>> | > | >>> | = https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-garcia-shim6-applicability/ | >>> | > | >>> | > What do you think? | >>> | > | >>> | > Thanks, | >>> | > Alberto | >>> | > | >>> | > | | >>> | > | In any case I support this draft going forward to the AD = quite | soon. | >>> | > | | >>> | > | Regards | >>> | > | Brian Carpenter | >>> | > | | >>> | > | | >>> | > | | >>> | > | | > From brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com Wed Oct 19 15:08:23 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: shim6@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: shim6@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBF0111E80AC for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:08:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.408 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.408 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.109, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EPteAeZtqOCR for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:08:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3D3411E8098 for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:08:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qyk34 with SMTP id 34so3493753qyk.10 for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:08:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ph9goIQQ3tbLW4zusYAQRbz8/3qzFEXWmybTpAtIoTk=; b=lSrsVPYZULTOEFPHtcAhec+N+5bBLGpt1GW1exQ1NZxCBUbbnnqkVkfxvsfjRxUsDj KeTzulyL2mzDyUNW5l96PD/pwLd7WR4hWWL3kmgPe0PjhWKs69BUMzNHIURF6/UPRmHz nFuFYiXR6qsLuU7vZQyXZuHoS+YaGmFzQmyoI= Received: by 10.229.68.80 with SMTP id u16mr1817572qci.142.1319062102254; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:08:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [130.216.38.124] (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz. [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id em9sm8327348qab.10.2011.10.19.15.08.17 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 19 Oct 2011 15:08:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4E9F4A4F.1060209@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 11:08:15 +1300 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: University of Auckland User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?QWxiZXJ0byBHYXJjw61h?= References: <20110901110629.557.88536.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <4E8CCE44.3070808@gmail.com> <00fb01cc875a$4500f9c0$cf02ed40$@it.uc3m.es> <4E939270.5070909@gmail.com> <004001cc8a8d$5de8a010$19b9e030$@it.uc3m.es> <4E988E19.9020603@gmail.com> <76F5C665-EDB7-4EBE-B06E-926376ACB657@apnic.net> <4E99031C.7040406@gmail.com> <012001cc8d68$a46eecf0$ed4cc6d0$@it.uc3m.es> In-Reply-To: <012001cc8d68$a46eecf0$ed4cc6d0$@it.uc3m.es> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without-ipv6nat@tools.ietf.org, 'shim6-wg' Subject: Re: [shim6] draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-01 X-BeenThere: shim6@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: SHIM6 Working Group Mailing List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 22:08:23 -0000 This looks good to me, I agree that it could go to the AD now. Regards Brian Carpenter On 2011-10-18 20:36, Alberto Garc=C3=ADa wrote: > Hi, > I've just posted a new -'unloaded'- draft version (http://www.ietf.org/= internet-drafts/draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-02.txt). I think now it = should be ready to go forward. > Thank you for your comments. >=20 > Regards, > Alberto >=20 > | -----Mensaje original----- > | De: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com] > | Enviado el: s=C3=A1bado, 15 de octubre de 2011 5:51 > | Para: Geoff Huston > | CC: Alberto Garc=C3=ADa; draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-multihoming-without- > | ipv6nat@tools.ietf.org; shim6-wg > | Asunto: Re: [shim6] draft-garcia-shim6-applicability-01 > | =20 > | Geoff, I think you're right, even though I share the animosity. > | =20 > | Regards > | Brian Carpenter > | =20 > | On 2011-10-15 14:03, Geoff Huston wrote: > | > Frankly I think it better not to use such loaded terms in an RFC > | > > | > if you dropped "Despite...connectivity," from the document would i= t > | > really change anything? > | > > | > regards, > | > > | > Geoff > | > > | > On 15/10/2011, at 6:31 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > | > > | >> Yes, thanks. It's better to point to the less harmful solution th= an > | >> to imply NAPTv6. > | >> > | >> Regards > | >> Brian > | >> > | >> On 2011-10-15 05:21, Alberto Garc=C3=ADa wrote: > | >>> Hi Brian, > | >>> > | >>> [...] > | >>> | > - I've added a new subsection named 'Shim6 and IPv6 NAT' af= ter > | >>> | the > firewall section. In short, IPv6 NATs may allow > | >>> | communicating with the > ULID pair (with the initial locators= ), > | >>> | but communication will break > with some cases in which locat= ors > | are changed. > | >>> | > | >>> | > | >>> | Please please change this to refer to *prefix* translation an= d RFC > | 6296. > | >>> | Although that RFC is only Experimental, the idea is to show t= hat > | >>> | the prefix translation (not NAPT) is all we need for IPv6. > | >>> > | >>> Sure. Do you think it would be enough to change the first senten= ce of > | the 'Shim6 and IPv6 NAT' section to include a reference to RFC 6296,= as > | follows?: > | >>> > | >>> "Despite the animosity of the technical community against IPv6 = NATs > | >>> because of disrupting end-to-end connectivity, address transla= tion > | >>> techniques such as Network Prefix Translation [RFC6296] may be= used > | >>> until workable solutions to avoid renumbering or facilitate > | >>> multihoming are developed [RFC5902]. We now consider the impa= ct > | of > | >>> IPv6 NATs in Shim6 operation." > | >>> > | >>> Regards, > | >>> Alberto > | >>> > | >>> > | >>> | > | >>> | Regards > | >>> | Brian > | >>> | > | >>> | > Since there are many changes, I have generated a new versio= n of > | >>> | the > | >>> | draft: > | >>> | > > | >>> | https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-garcia-shim6-applicabil= ity/ > | >>> | > > | >>> | > What do you think? > | >>> | > > | >>> | > Thanks, > | >>> | > Alberto > | >>> | > > | >>> | > | > | >>> | > | In any case I support this draft going forward to the AD= quite > | soon. > | >>> | > | > | >>> | > | Regards > | >>> | > | Brian Carpenter > | >>> | > | > | >>> | > | > | >>> | > | > | >>> | > | > | > >=20 >=20