Subject: IETF 70 6MAN Minutes

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:32:42 -0500

All,
     Attached are the minutes taken for our meeting in Vancouver.  Many 
thanks to Karen O'Donoghue for acting as minute taker and Suresh 
Krishnan for being the Jabber scribe.  Please review the minutes and 
provide any changes, clarifications, or updates.

Regards,
Brian & Bob

IETF IPv6 Maintenance Working Group Meeting
Wednesday, 5 December, 2007, 0900-1130

The meeting was called to order by co-chairs Brian Haberman and 
Bob Hinden. Karen O'Donoghue (with input from Ed Jankiewicz) 
took minutes and Suresh Krishnan acted as Jabber scribe. The blue sheets were 
distributed, and the agenda was presented with no additions. During 
the agenda discussion, Rosalea Roberts reminded the working group 
of the draft-narten-ipv6-3177bis-48boundary-03 discussion 
currently ongoing in v6ops and encouraged this working group to 
follow and participate in that discussion. 

Node Requirements Update (Brian Haberman for John Loughney)
=================================================
Document: RFC 4294 IPv6 Node Requirements
Slides: IETF70-6MAN-node-reqs-update.pdf

Brian Haberman, speaking for the unavoidably absent John 
Loughney, discussed the question of updating RFC 4294. There are 
basically two questions. Should we do the work and if yes, how 
should we proceed? Several individuals indicated that the update 
should be done and there was no opposition. Based on the consensus 
that the work should be done, Brian further asked how to proceed. 
Three options were identified: 
1. Simple update to cover base RFCs
2. #1 AND adding additional RFCs
3. #2 AND restructuring

The ensuing discussion primarily focused on options 2 and 3 with 
most speakers supporting option 2. A recurring theme was the need 
for a definition of the minimal requirements for interoperability with 
organizations responsible for deployment (e.g. DoD and NIST) 
specifying additional deployment specific requirements. Others 
indicated that the current document currently contains very few 
MUSTs as it is. The use of conditional language to specify 
requirements for subsets of functionality was discussed. Brian 
Haberman requested that participants continue the discussion on the 
mailing list. 

IKEv2 issues (Pasi Eronen)
=====================
Draft: draft-eronen-ipsec-ikev2-ipv6-config-01.txt
Slides: IETF70-6MAN-ipv6-ikev2.pdf

This draft addresses an issue with IPv6 configuration in IKEv2 for 
remote access VPNs. There was general agreement that IKEv2 is 
broken and this works needs to be done. Discussion focused on 
whether the link model utilized was representative enough and 
potential scalability issues. Yari Arkko indicated that he liked the 
draft and supported the effort. A change is needed and there is a 
small window of opportunity to make this change. Bob Hinden asked 
if it was appropriate for the 6MAN WG to do the work. Yari prefers 
for the security ADs to sponsor the work with strong participation 
from this WG and will take the action to initiate a conversation with 
them. 

Reserved IIDs (Suresh Krishnan) 
========================
Document: draft-krishnan-ipv6-reserved-iids-02.txt
Slides: IETF70-6MAN-reserved-iids.pdf

Suresh presented this proposal to create a centralized repository for 
reserved interface identifiers. Brian Haberman pointed out that we 
already do this for the multicast address space (RFC 3307). No one 
opposed the adoption of this as a working group document.  

DHCP options in RAs  (Suresh Krishnan) 
================================
Document: draft-krishnan-intarea-ra-dhcp-00.txt
Slides: IETF70-6MAN-dhc-options-in-ra.pdf

Suresh presented a draft that defines a generic neighbor discovery 
option for carry DHCP options over IPv6 Router Advertisements. 
The rationale included a desire to avoid parallel definition and 
duplicate standardization as well as the potential to share code. 

During the discussion phase, several individuals addressed concerns 
with the proposal. Alain Durand stated that this draft had been 
discussed yesterday in the DHCP WG and the sense of the DHC 
meeting was that it was a bad idea. Bob Hinden pointed out that IF 
this goes forward the WG would need to classify current options. 
There is probably a very small set of options that this would be 
appropriate for. Erik Nordmark stated that this creates more 
problems than it solves. The more places we put this kind of 
information, the more work we have to do to resolve what happens 
when you get contradictory information from another method. We 
also need to be very specific about the lifetime of this information. 
Dave Thaler pointed out that without this proposal, anyone who 
wants to put the same information in RAs and DHCP must come to 
the IETF for review and approval. Ralph Droms agreed that by doing 
this we eliminate possible oversight. One individual did indicate that 
this was a good idea, but we need to be very careful about what 
information is allowed to be carried. Yari Arkko concluded the 
discussion by stating that he did not support this draft. 

Address Selection (2 presentations) 
==========================
Document: draft-arifumi-6man-addr-select-sol-00.txt   
Slides: IETF70-6MAN-arifumi-addr-select.pdf

Arifumi Matsumoto presented the above draft. Erik Nordmark stated 
that the document talks about a node with multiple interfaces. How 
would you deal with the situation where you got multiple responses? 
The chairs asked the room who had read the document and who 
thought it was ready for to be adopted as a working group item. 
There was a small set of people answering yes to both. Further 
discussion was directed to the list. 

Document: draft-fujikawa-ipv6-src-addr-selection-01.txt
Slides: IETF70-6MAN-fujikawa-src-addr-selection.pdf

Fujikawa Kenji presented the above draft. Time ran out and the 
chairs requested that the WG read the document and take the 
discussion to the mailing list. 

On-link issues & 2461bis (Hemant Singh)
==============================
Document: draft-wbeebee-on-link-and-off-link-determination-00.txt
Document: draft-wbeebee-nd-implementation-problems-00.txt
Slides: IETF70-6MAN-offlink.pdf

Hemant Singh presented a discussion on the on- and off-link issues 
with RFC 4861. Hosts in aggregated routed networks are offlink. 
There is data forwarding confusion on IPv6 hosts behind modems in 
aggregated routed networks.  RFC 4861 is ambiguous on how to 
configure RA on a router to signal off-link. The author wishes to 
clear up ambiguity in the specification. Erik Nordmark said this 
sounds like an implemention bug. 
Bob Hinden indicated that more discussion and analysis are needed 
before we can adopt as a working group item. He directed discussion 
to the mailing list. 

Dickson draft (Brian Dickson) 
======================
Document: draft-dickson-v6man-new-autoconf-00.txt
Slides: IETF70-6MAN-New-Autoconf.pdf

Brian Dickson presented a proposal that is motivated by looking at 
wide and timely IPv6 deployment and issues of scaling in a mixed 
IPv4 and IPv6 network. The draft proposes the use of prefix lengths 
other than 64 bits in certain circumstances. The purpose of this draft 
is to foster discussion and collect some analysis for consideration. 
Brian wants to know if we can make a small change to improve 
scalability?  

An animated discussion followed Brian's presentation. Tony Hain 
stated that he thought this was a really bad idea. It breaks current 
operations, the fundamental premise that it helps scaling is flawed, 
and the proposal is ten years too late. Marla Azinger stated that the 
document was too long and she was disappointed that the author 
didn't get to the point thus obscuring the message. She felt we 
couldn't decide today because more work is required to clarify the 
arguments and proposal. Alain Durand voiced some sympathy with 
the idea that maybe /64 is not the right thing; however, he felt that 
we need to separate the policy and technical discussions. Margaret 
Wasserman pointed that while we could decide whether or not this is 
good technically we are not in a position to force a policy change. 
Another speaker felt the analysis was good, but the idea was bad. 
Erik Nordmark seconded the concern that the timing is wrong (it is 
either 10 years too late or 20 years too early). He also is not 
concerned about current IPv6 address consumption rate. Another 
individual pointed out that we don't fully appreciate the impacts of 
this on other organizations. Brian Dickson concluded with the 
comment that making these changes later would require re-prefixing 
and re-numbering. A parallel move towards incremental changes 
would not impede deployment. 

The chairs asked the room whether the work should continue. Many 
hands said no and a few indicated yes. 

ULA-C Analysis (Margaret Wasserman) 
=============================
Document: draft-mrw-6man-ulac-analysis-01.txt
Slides: IETF70-6MAN-ULAC-Analysis.pdf

Margaret Wasserman presented her draft on an analysis of Centrally 
Assigned Unique Local Addresses (ULA-Cs). The draft discusses 
the motivation, costs, and some of the arguments for and against 
ULA-Cs in an attempt to help the IETF IPv6 community reach 
consensus on this issue. The questions for the WG are: 1) Should 
some kind of centrally-assigned ULA be available; and if so 2) 
should they be defined in the IETF? 

Bob Hinden's draft was produced with the motivation that he wanted 
a good example of what it could look like if the IETF wanted to do 
this. He is not a strong proponent. The world has gotten used to local 
addresses, and he doesn't want the lack of net 10 type addresses to 
slow down v6 deployment. Kurt Lindquist felt that ULA-Cs create a 
sixth RIR and is a bad idea. Alain Durand indicated that this is a 
technology versus policy issue, and he's not sure where it should be 
discussed. Tony Hain indicated that we are not creating a registry. 
Instead, we are creating an instruction to the registry community. 
Someone will create this and do it anyway if the IETF doesn't. Dave 
Thaler indicated that the benefits don't outweigh the costs. The 
chairs asked that folks read the draft and comment on mailing list. 

The meeting adjourned. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:07:12 -0500

Minutes look OK to me. You're welcome to ship 'em to the IETF URL.

Thanks.

Hemant 

-----Original Message-----
From: Brian Haberman [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 2:33 PM
To: IPv6 WG Mailing List
Subject: IETF 70 6MAN Minutes

All,

Regards,
Brian & Bob

---

From: Arifumi Matsumoto <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:20:58 +0900

Hi,

from this minutes I couldn't tell my document was adopted
as 6man wg item. At Vancouver, I believe, my sol document
was adopted as 6man wg item. Is that correct ?

Sincerely yours.

Brian Haberman wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

-- 
Arifumi Matsumoto
    IP Technology Expert Team
    Secure Communication Project
    NTT Information Sharing Platform Laboratories
    E-mail: [email-masked]

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:53:07 -0500

My notes show us adopting this document.

Regards,
Brian

Arifumi Matsumoto wrote:
> Address Selection (2 presentations) ==========================
> Document: draft-arifumi-6man-addr-select-sol-00.txt   Slides: 
> IETF70-6MAN-arifumi-addr-select.pdf
> 
> Arifumi Matsumoto presented the above draft. Erik Nordmark stated that 
> the document talks about a node with multiple interfaces. How would you 
> deal with the situation where you got multiple responses? The chairs 
> asked the room who had read the document and who thought it was ready 
> for to be adopted as a working group item. There was a small set of 
> people answering yes to both. Further discussion was directed to the list.
> 
> Brian Haberman wrote:
>> All,