Subject: [BEHAVE] next steps for ipv4-ipv6 co-existence and an interim meeting

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:07:33 +0300

We had many discussions about the IPv4 and IPv6 co-existence, NAT-PT
replacement, and new tunneling or translation solutions in Dublin. My
interpretation of the outcome is that some solutions are ready to move
forward (dual-stack lite to prevent running out of RFC 1918 addresses),
we improved our understanding of the translation designs (nat64 etc),
but that we were less far along in agreeing about the requirements for
that than we had hoped. In the INTAREA meeting you saw us go back to the
question of what scenarios we intend to address. We did not come to a
conclusion on that either, but private discussions afterwards have
convinced at least the INT ADs that we have a real business need for 2-3
different scenarios, requiring different solutions. The reality is that
existing NAT-PT is going to be used for some of these purposes unless
the IETF produces something better. I believe we can improve over the
existing design, and given that the mission of the IETF is to improve
the Internet, it is our duty to make this happen. To do this, we do not
need to find one perfect solution to all scenarios, enumerate all the
different situations that we'll encounter in the future, or even have a
solution that is completely free of problems. All we need to do is to
improve over what would happen otherwise.

With this in mind, I see the following short term next steps:
- Mark and I will produce a scenarios document that describes what
situations we must solve
- SOFTWIRE WG will be rechartered to add a work item on dual-stack
lite/snat (token: SOFTWIRE chairs)
- Progress the spec on dual-stack lite/snat (token: authors)
- For the rest, we need a written analysis of the overall design space
(token: Dan Wing and Alain Durand have agreed to do this)
- Progress the specs for the different translation-based proposals,
based on feedback in Dublin (token: authors)
- More discussion is needed on implications of "carrier-grade NATs" in
the pure IPv4 space

Did I miss anything?

We are also planning to run an interim meeting. The goal would be to
provide enough time to talk about this topic, and make significant
progress before IETF-73. This would be a meeting that affects work
happening in a number of WGs (SOFTWIRE, V6OPS, BEHAVE, INTAREA) and
different solutions for different scenarios. The agenda for the meeting
will be posted later, but it contains slots to talk about the scenarios,
design space, and each different solution approach.

The dates are October 1-2 and the likely location is Montreal, Canada.
We are currently working to confirm availability of meeting space and
other arrangements. So please consider this information tentative at the
moment; if we get surprises this may still change. However, for venue
selection we would like to learn how many people would join such a
meeting. Please fill in a poll here:

http://www.doodle.ch/participation.html?pollId=xw744qvw725cbsfm

Follow-ups regarding the general plan and the interim to intarea only,
please.

Jari Arkko
(on behalf of the ADs and WG chairs)

_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave

---

From: Rémi Després <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:28:22 +0200

> - More discussion is needed on implications of "carrier-grade NATs" in

Just a detail, but IMHO worth validating.

Can it be assumed that the last but one item "Progress the specs for
the different _translation-based_ proposals..." is in practice open to
a proposal that avoids translation?

The reason for the question is the proposal that is worked on, following 
the APBP presentation in Dublin, with interest expressed in particular 
by Teemu Savolainen and Gabor Bajko of Nokia.

With it, translation is completely avoided in scenario 1.d of Mark's 
presentation (DS host accessing the IPv4-only world through an IPv6-only 
cloud).
This transparency of global IPv4 across tunnels is naturally seen as a 
positive point of the design.

Regards.

Rémi Després

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 07:45:45 -0700

Jari,

>Did I miss anything?

I was not able to attend the meeting; were considerations
for ipv4-ipv6 coexistence in enterprise networks discussed?

Fred
[email-masked]
_______________________________________________
Behave mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:14:46 -0700

> > - More discussion is needed on implications of 
> > "carrier-grade NATs" in the pure IPv4 space
> > 
> > Did I miss anything?
> 
> The reason for the question is the proposal that is worked 
> on, following the APBP presentation in Dublin, with interest 
> expressed in particular by Teemu Savolainen and Gabor Bajko of 
> Nokia.
> 
> presentation (DS host accessing the IPv4-only world through 
> an IPv6-only cloud).
> This transparency of global IPv4 across tunnels is naturally 
> seen as a positive point of the design.

I would consider that 'host-based translation', and hence 
in scope of what Jari mentioned.  With host-based translation,
the host is doing the translation instead of a device in the 
network.  Depending on how it is implemented in the host, it 
could be the host application or the host's stack that 'borrows'
the IPv4 transport address.

I look forward to reading the I-D.

-d

---

From: "Dan Wing" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:19:32 -0700

> for ipv4-ipv6 coexistence in enterprise networks discussed?

I believe most everyone is thinking of the Internet, rather
than enterprise networks.

If there are unique enterprise requirements it would be 
valuable to incorporate them into a requirements document 
(either in draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-pb-statement-req or in the 
document that Jari's email said that Jari and Mark Townsley 
are writing -- I'm not sure which one would be best).

-d