Subject: RE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-unman-scenarios-00.txt

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 09:33:48 -0800

> On Mon, 3 Mar 2003, Ronald van der Pol wrote:
> > > A particular thing I note that multiple-subnet case seems to be
> > > out of scope, or that's the impression I get based on the first
> paragraph.
> >
> > We have been discussing multiple-subnet cases internally, especially
an
> > 802.11b router connected to a home LAN behind a SOHO router to the
ISP.
> > In the IPv4 case this usually is a NAT behind a NAT :-(
> 
> The best in this case might be to deploy the 801.11b router to act as
a
> bridge.
> 
> But in any case, the scenarios document should be clearer on what is
> considered "in scope" for the unmanaged networks.

The issue was debated in the working group, in particular during the WG
meeting in Atlanta. There was a very strong consensus to restrict the
scope of our work to "single link subnets". I don't believe it is
appropriate to revisit that decision right now.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 10:45:06 -0500

> You seem to be quite confident about that. Could you explain 
> why you think multiple subnets will arrive in SOHOs? I'm not 
> saying I don't agree with you. I just would like to know the 
> scenarios where multiple subnets are needed. And when they 
> are needed. I think we have already spent too much time on 
> the scenario/analysis drafts. We should not delay any longer 
> when it is not absolutely necessary.

First and foremost it is a "choice" we should permit.  I personally
think bridges were a bad idea for networks back in the late 80's, and I
don't believe extended LANs are acceptable, being inherently evil
wearing my network computer scientist hat.  That being said, in a home
you have one subnet in the basement, one in the 1st level, and then one
in next level of the home.  Each with its own applications for that
subnet for personal and household appliances. If I want to access other
floors one can, but over a router, and one does not want to see the
traffic for many reasons on the other subnets.  In SOHO this can be a
clear division of work like the Dentist Office.  The Dentist work is
using machinery and robotics on one subnet, and the office admin is
doing accounting on another subnet, and common applications are running
in the closet of the office in a server accessible to both, and where
ingress/egress end points are to the public Internet.  Each of these
networks do not want others on their subnet and it could be for security
reasons too.  Admin at front office hates patient that comes in and
turns up the speed on the Dentist's drill when the patient begins
treatment :---)

As far as discussion.  I asked the chairs the question.  Until they tell
us to stop discussion I intend to respond.  Respectfully to that
question.

> 
> Another question is whether v6ops should pick this up. Maybe 
> zerouter (if that is going to be a WG) is a better place and 
> we need to make sure they cover IPv6, unmanaged networks and 
> SOHOs too.

If that logic is true then the entire spec should move to zeroconf.  I
think that is not a good idea.

Regards,
/jim

---

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 09:01:08 -0800

> think that is not a good idea.

Jim,

There is no question that there may be a technical interest in having
multiple subnets in a home network. However, there is also no question
that we cannot provide "unmanaged multi-subnet networks" with today's
technology. This is pretty much what settled the issue in the discussion
group: multi-subnet networks, today, are managed. The UPNP architecture
committee came pretty much to the same conclusion: structured networks
in the home may be desirable, but are not practical today; bridges
provide a reasonable alternative.

Not that I like this state of affairs. In fact, Dave Thaler and I
submitted a draft to the IPv6 WG that addresses the issue
(draft-ietf-ipv6-multilink-subnets-00.txt). I believe we need something
like that in practice, as we are finding practical deployment of
"cascaded NATs" in some home networks today, and that really breaks a
number of applications.

But, well, this was the group's consensus.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:06:29 -0500

Christian,

Excellent point.  No way can we do unmanaged with multiple subnets.

Kills it for me.  Move the draft to IESG review Margaret is my input
before someone else opens another can of worms or pandaora's box.  We
must learn to ship our work expediently and quickly around here.  The
uman team has done the work, we have discussed it,  it is a well written
draft, and if the IESG in their infinite wisdom makes this PS any warts
can be fixed after PS.

Thanks Christian I thought it was correct but in the discussion I missed
the obvious and thanks for pointing that out to me indirectly.
/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Huitema [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 12:01 PM
> To: Bound, Jim; Ronald van der Pol
> Cc: Pekka Savola; Margaret Wasserman; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-unman-scenarios-00.txt
> 
> 
> > think bridges were a bad idea for networks back in the late 
> 80's, and
> I
> > > zerouter (if that is going to be a WG) is a better place 
> and we need 
> > > to make sure they cover IPv6, unmanaged networks and SOHOs too.
> > 
> There is no question that there may be a technical interest 
> in having multiple subnets in a home network. However, there 
> is also no question that we cannot provide "unmanaged 
> multi-subnet networks" with today's technology. This is 
> pretty much what settled the issue in the discussion
> group: multi-subnet networks, today, are managed. The UPNP 
> architecture committee came pretty much to the same 
> conclusion: structured networks in the home may be desirable, 
> but are not practical today; bridges provide a reasonable alternative.
> 
> Not that I like this state of affairs. In fact, Dave Thaler 
> and I submitted a draft to the IPv6 WG that addresses the 
> issue (draft-ietf-ipv6-multilink-subnets-00.txt). I believe 
> we need something like that in practice, as we are finding 
> practical deployment of "cascaded NATs" in some home networks 
> today, and that really breaks a number of applications.
>

---

From: "Anders Eriksson C (EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:51:54 +0100

> Note: the definition is not "home" or "SoHo" network.

Well, the abstract of unman-scenarios-00 suggests that home and SoHo has been taken into account. Granted that the rest of the text only covers one subnet. Perhaps a slight rewording in that area is in place?

/Anders

---

From: "Fischer, Christine A (Chris)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:35:32 -0600

Comments from Chris Fischer on Unmanaged Networks IPv6 Transition Scenarios
The majority of these are minor editing comments to make content clearer.

Section 3: change "status vary" to "status varies"

Section 3.1: change "sharing of file or printers" to "sharing of files or printers"

Sections 3.1 and 3.2: change "performs NAT or firewall function" to "performs NAT or a firewall function"

Section 4.1, second paragraph: change "an example of standard system" to "an example of a standard system"  (same comment page 6)

Section 4.2.1, third paragraph:  change "prevent outsiders to correlate" to "prevent outsiders from being able to correlate"
same section, fourth paragraph:  "is not a sufficient reason to enable additional tracking through IPv6 addresses"  Did you mean additional tracking here or additional privacy?

Section 4.2.1, last sentence in section:  change "unmanaged network allow" to "unmanaged networks allow"

Top of Page 10, section 5.2.1:  The text refers to the problems with DNS requests when translation is implemented.  It might help to include a reference to a draft that discusses these problems, for example, Alain Durand "Issues with NAT-PT DNS ALG in RFC2766"<draft-durand-v6ops-natpt-dns-alg-issues-00.txt>; there are others as well.

Page 10, section 5.2.2 and 5.3.2:  "natted", shouldn't acronyms be upper case?

Section 5.2.2:  change "This is as debatable" to "This is debatable"
Section 5.2.2:  change "to site local application" to "to site local applications"
Section 5.2.2:  change "the gateway need to use a mechanism obtain" to "the gateway needs to use a mechanism to obtain"

Section 5.2.3, page 11:  change "depend of the protocol" to "depend on the protocol"

-----Original Message-----
From: Margaret Wasserman [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 11:11 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-v6ops-unman-scenarios-00.txt

Hi All,

This is a WG Last Call for comments on sending the Unmanaged
Networks scenarios document to the IESG for consideration as
an Informational RFC:

Title:     Unmanaged Networks IPv6 Transition Scenarios
Filename:  draft-ietf-v6ops-unman-scenarios-00.txt
Authors:   C. Huitema, R. Austein, R. van der Pol
Date:      January 10, 2003

The document can be found at:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-v6ops-unman-scenarios-00.txt

Abstract

    In order to evaluate the suitability of transition mechanisms, we
    need to define the scenarios in which these mechanisms have to be
    used. One specific scope is the "unmanaged networks", which
    typically correspond to home networks or small office networks.

Please review this document carefully, and send your feedback
to the list, indicating whether or not you believe that this
document is ready to go to the IESG.  Silence does NOT indicate
consent.  Unless sufficient support is demonstrated on the list,
the document will not be send to the IESG.

Thanks,
Margaret, Itojun and Bob
v6ops WG Chairs