* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

V6ops Status Pages

IPv6 Operations (Active WG)
Ops Area: Ignas Bagdonas, Warren Kumari | 2002-Aug-22 —  
Chairs
 
 
 


IETF-101 v6ops minutes

Session 2018-03-19 0930-1200: Viscount - Audio stream - v6ops chatroom

Minutes

minutes-101-v6ops-00 minutes



           IPv6 Operations - IETF 101     Monday 9:30
          
           Chairs: Fred Baker, Ron Bonica, Lee Howard
           Jabber: Mikael Abrahamsson
           Notes: Barbara Stark
          
          Agenda:
          Primary discussions
                 Mythic Beasts: an IPv6-Preferred Data Center
                 Requirements for IPv6 Routers 2018-03-04 ,
                 <draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6rtr-reqs>
                 Using Conditional Router Advertisements for Enterprise Multihoming
                 2018-02-27, <draft-ietf-v6ops-conditional-ras>
          
          Brief discussions
           The following have been posted but had little or no comment on
           v6ops@ietf.org. We have a little time to talk, so we'll let folks talk
           briefly.
          
             IPv6 Performance Measurement with Alternate Marking Method 2018-02-26,
             <draft-fioccola-v6ops-ipv6-alt-mark>
             IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile 2018-03-04,
             <draft-bonica-intarea-frag-fragile>
             NAT64 Deployment Guidelines in Operator and Enterprise Networks
             2018-03-05 , <draft-palet-v6ops-nat64-deployment>
             IPv6 Point-to-Point Links 2018-03-05, <draft-palet-v6ops-p2p-links>
          
             Transition Requirements for IPv6 Customer Edge Routers to support
             IPv4 as a Service 2018-03-02, <draft-palet-v6ops-transition-ipv4aas>
          
             IPv6 Prefix Delegation Models  2018-03-02, <draft-templin-v6ops-pdhost>
          
          
          Draft Status: The status of v6ops drafts, both working group
          drafts (draft-ietf-v6ops-*) and individual submissions to the
          working group (draft-<author>-v6ops-*), may be determined from
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/v6ops/.
          
          -----------------------------
          Chair opening comments
               Fred Baker thanked Lee Howard for all he has done, since Lee is
               stepping down as a co-chair.
               Fred Templin will present first, because he is presenting remotely
               and it is 02:30 for him. Then proceed with agenda as posted.
          ----------------------------
          Fred Templin presented IPv6 Prefix Delegation Models
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/slides-101-v6ops-ipv6-prefix-delegation-models-00
          
          
          Fred Baker: 10 minutes is up. Please comment against this draft on the
          list.
          ------------------------------
          Pete Stevens presented IPv6 Only Hosting
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/slides-101-v6ops-ipv6-only-hosting-00
          
          
          Mikael: From jabber: <phessler> question for the mic: how many customers
          insist they still have users only on IPv4, so they can't go to IPv6-only?
          Pete: v4 will never go away, but it's ok, because it's proxied. We don't
          care whether people are trying to reach the services over v4 or v6.
          Mikael: The question was how many of your customers are actually using
          v4?
          Pete: In the VM managed service, about half still have a v4 address.
          Lee Howard:
          Pete: The stuff that runs our network is proprietary. There are various
          challenges.
          Lorenzo Colitti: I think you're showing there really is a cost to running
          IPv4, and it's great to see that this is true now.
          Auwal Tata (remote): <could not hear Auwal>
          Fred: No one else at microphone. Thank you.
          -------------------------------
          Fred Baker walked through Russ White's slides for Requirements for IPv6
          Routers [starts around 1 hour into the meeting]
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/slides-101-v6ops-requirements-for-ipv6-routers-00
          
          
          Fred Baker: How do we move forward?
          Barbara Stark: The problem for me is in the scoping. Russ needs to state
          which set of routers he wants to address, and it can't be "all". I don't
          know what set Russ specifically wants to ensure is included in scope. I
          tried suggesting Enterprise, but he didn't like that. It didn't seem to
          correctly describe all the routers he was interested in.
          Lorenzo: One size does not fit all. And we should not have a shopping
          list. Consider conditional statements in requirements.
          Tim Chown: Agree with most of what Lorenzo said. Worked to harmonize this
          with 6434-bis. I like this draft and think it has a lot that is good.
          Fred: I will ask Russ to listen to recording and look at minutes.
          --------------------------------
          Jen Linkova presented Using Conditional Router Advertisements for
          Enterprise Multihoming
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/slides-101-v6ops-conditional-router-advertisements-for-enterprise-multihoming-00
          
          
          Tim Chown: I think this is useful and would like to see it progress. I
          like the changes. Should 6434-bis make this a MUST instead of SHOULD?
          Jen: Leave as SHOULD.
          Fred: If there are cases where you wouldn't want to do this, then it's
          a SHOULD. Are there cases?
          Tim: Need to discuss in 6man.
          Lorenzo: Go for Last Call and get it done. I would like the doc to
          explain how this is similar to IPv4 with NAT.
          Jen: You're right. I can add some to section on limitations.
          Lorenzo: This is possible today if the network supports it. Because 5.5
          doesn't exist in most hosts today -- meaning changes are needed to hosts
          anyway -- and it isn't the best approach / is a hack, should we figure
          out the right approach?
          Tim: I agree.
          Tatuya Jinmei: Ready for Last Call. Regarding 5.5, wondered if it may
          now be supported by more devices.
          Barbara: I support Last Call and like the draft.
          Juliusz Chroboczek: Is there a list of devices that support 5.5?
          Jen: Only know Windows supports.
          Fred: I will start a 2 week Last Call. Even if you have no comments,
          please indicate support.
          ---------------------------------
          Giuseppe Fioccola presented IPv6 Performance Measurement with Alternate
          Marking Method
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/slides-101-v6ops-ipv6-performance-measurement-with-alternate-marking-method-00
          
          
          Fred: When you say adopt by WG, is that v6ops, 6man, which WG?
          Giuseppe: I don't know.
          Fred 6man is this afternoon so decision to adopt work to define new bit
          will be there.
          Tim Chown: References are experimental. In 6man obvious concerns will
          be you can only set to random if arrives with zero value and many hosts
          are setting so your ability to re-mark may be limited.
          Lee: As a co-chair, I'd like to understand whether there is operational
          interest in using this?
          Fred Telecom Italia seems interested.
          Lee: Yes, but that's one.
          Michael Ackerman: As an enterprise operator it may be interesting.
          ----------------------------------
          Ron Bonica presented on IP Fragmentation Considered Fragile
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/slides-101-v6ops-ip-fragmentation-considered-fragile-00
          
          
          Mikael: I think the network operator recommendation needs to be
          stronger. There are many networks where the ICMP message isn't even
          generated and sent.
          Ron: Right. I didn't think about that. That will be in the next version.
          Mikael: We need to include recommendation for support of PLPMTUD
          
          Wes George: The problem is technically we still can't do packets bigger
          than 1500. I'd like to recommend there might need to be a liaison
          statement to IEEE to fix this.
          Ron: I agree
          Jared Mauch:
          Ron:
          Jared:
          Jen:  We need to say it's not just filtering but also other things like
          not generating. DNSSEC is a big problem and we need recommendations to
          network operators to make that work.
          Ron: OK
          Juliusz: I think this is a good document, but do have some comments. It's
          not clear who you are talking to -- it may be good to target application
          developers.
          Ron: That might be good.
          Christian Huitema: You don't mention that fragmented packets don't
          necessarily arrive in the same order. Because they don't have the
          same port numbers, they don't go in same buckets and can arrive in any
          order. <discussion with Lorenzo, where Lorenzo was not at microphone>
          Geoff Huston: In theory one should never see fragmented TCP packets. DNS
          is a problem but will fix after a while. Why not fall back to TCP? In
          DNSOPS WG, they should be looking at draft that proposes solution --
          how to make flip to fragmentation recovery quicker. If you must fragment,
          recover more quickly. Assume breakage and recover.
          Jared Mauch: The problem I see is router vendors tend to do this
          poorly. We have rate limiters that cause these packets not to make it
          back. Our end customers have high performance expectations. Regardless
          of app. Performance is gating thing.
          Ron: My take-away is we need to have recovery mechanism.
          Lorenzo: We need to look at other ways to solve this.
          Ron: We need to work this problem.
          Jinmei: some quick comments regarding DNS: the DNS community is now
          more interested in using TCP (although DNS over UDP won't disappear).
          There's a proposal of application layer fragmentation of DNS several
          years ago (and it's now dead).  Will send a link.
          Ron: Thank you
          -----------------------------
          Jordi Palet Martinez presented NAT64 Deployment Guidelines in Operator
          and Enterprise Networks
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/slides-101-v6ops-nat64-deployment-guidelines-in-operator-and-enterprise-networks-00
          
          Jordi Palet Martinez presented IPv6 Point to Point Links
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/slides-101-v6ops-ipv6-point-to-point-links-00
          
          Jordi Palet Martinez presented Transition Requirements for IPv6 CE
          Routers to support IPv4 as a Service
          https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/slides-101-v6ops-transition-requirements-for-ipv6-ce-routers-to-support-ipv4-as-a-service-00
          
          
          
          Jen: I looked at NAT64 doc and got confused. It scares people
          away. Regarding DNSSEC problem, maybe tell people if you care about
          security then you must make it work.
          Barbara: Need to narrow list of transition technologies more, if
          possible.
          Lee: I have a list of who is running what and will post.
          Jordi: In old survey, MAPT, MAPE, Lightweight were little used. But use
          is increasing.
          
          Fred: We are at top of the hour. Take further discussion to the list.
          
          



Generated from PyHt script /wg/v6ops/minutes.pyht Latest update: 24 Oct 2012 16:51 GMT -